Connolly: Elias does not have approval to take on salary to add prospects in a trade

[NCRaven]

2 hours ago, interloper said:

One of the more interesting things about the rebuild is certainly the lack of budget and the reasoning behind it. I'm hesitant to just call it ownership greed, as I doubt it's that simple. I'd love to know what ownership and Elias have talked about, what the budget plan calls for, if funds are indeed being redirected heavily into infrastructure, if a sale is in the works, if there are significant stadium upgrades in the works, how much the Davis contract is a factor, etc. We just don't really know. So I hesitate to kill them on it right now. 

We do know keeping the budget low was part of the Astros rebuild, and that they had no problems spending when it counted. The Orioles have had a tendency to spend unwisely in the past, so I'm fine with keeping the budget low while Elias gets the foundation built. Then I do expect them to spend again. 

What do you mean "the lack of budget"?  Just because Elias and ownership haven't publicly published a budget - something no team or any other business does - doesn't mean that there is a lack of a budget.

[Just Regular]

11 minutes ago, Philip said:

Meanwhile, it’s important to consider the main goal going forward, and that is to rethink how much a player is worth. Mike is creating a huge farm system with lots and lots of worthwhile pieces so that he doesn’t ever have to sign someone to a huge contract.

I don't know if we'll ever get there, but after Greinke - three makes a trend.  I think there might be signal that in Verlander, Cole and Greinke's case, the Astros neither developed nor bought in FA their best pitchers.  In all three trades, they also never traded an elite prospect, instead achieving the four-quarters-for-a-dollar style of trade.

[NCRaven]

2 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

And this is the problem that should worry O's fans.  We're doing this complete tear down, but yet our GM still has constraints, and can't do things his way.  Within reason, of course. 

 

The article simply says that Elias would have to get ownership approval to add a significant salary.  It doesn't say that ownership is absolutely against such a deal.

[Moose Milligan]

1 hour ago, interloper said:

The fact that anyone thinks Elias "can't do things his way" when he literally created the international scouting and analytics departments out of thin air, hired a ton of his own people, traded for prospects he himself hand-picked, and handled the 2018 draft almost completely by himself because he wanted to is really stretching. 

Would he like to cut Davis? Yeah probably! But you can't just ignore the mountain of other stuff he has accomplished as he himself designed it to be accomplished. 

This is a good point.  People will want to ignore all the good things because Davis is still here and other issues...like Villar/Bundy markets not yielding what they'd expect.

[Oriole1940]

The Bundy trade I hope is not  quantity vs quality.  We will not know for sure till the prospects prove it  one way or the other.    However, it brought back unpleasant memories of the dark days when we tried that tactic, but it did not seem to work out.  If it would have  been  close to successful, the farm system would have been in better shape when Elias got here,  than it was.    Hopefully out of four prospects, we get some real ML value.   But it just brought back  memories I have tried to forget.  

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Everyone always complains that the local beat writers are too easy on the O's FO.  Well here is Connelly telling us that Elias doesn't have permission to do something he may have wanted to do, and everyone quickly dismisses the writer.  

I have no problem with Connolly expressing his opinion.    In fact, I applaud him for it.    He seems to have more leeway with the Athletic than a lot of the other beat writers do (especially the MASN writers, of course).    

But I don’t really agree with him here.    Elias and ownership agreed on a certain vision when he took the job.    Swallowing large sums to “buy” prospects from other organizations wasn’t part of what Elias proposed to do when he took the job.    So if he’d need to go back to ownership on a transaction like that, I don’t see that as tying his hands, I see that as understandable.   And I also don’t think Elias would have done that deal, just based on his comments.    

[Scalious]

2 minutes ago, Philip said:

Meanwhile, it’s important to consider the main goal going forward, and that is to rethink how much a player is worth. Mike is creating a huge farm system with lots and lots of worthwhile pieces so that he doesn’t ever have to sign someone to a huge contract. When you have ten worthwhile LHP prospects, you don’t have to go out and sign one high-dollar one. And when you trade Bundy, it’s better to get four young possibilities than one right-now probability.

Going forward Mike wants a true pipeline, where he can trade a valuable guy when his arbitration salary gets high, and shuffle in the next guy. He’ll NEVER pay for Rondon or Cole or Stanton because he won’t need to, but also because it’s a bad idea. The Padres will never be anything, except expensive.

A team that wins 90 a year and always makes the playoffs is a good team, and that’s our goal. With the road between system and Show being long enough and wide enough, we won’t need to worry about high-priced FAs.

 

That is very idealistic. It's a worthy goal but that is something that is extremely hard to do, while trying to win a WS. When the Astro's were building up. They were doing things most other teams were not. Trying to mimick this idea is going to be harder in 2019 because other teams have caught on. You no longer have the niche you did in 2012 to fully exploit. We might be getting to a point when the Pendulum is swinging back and using FA makes a little more sense(Not this year, but things will change in after 2021)

Especially the part about trading away players when their arb salary gets too high. You want to lock up your core players long terms.

The Astro's don't even do completely like the Rays/A's do. If you want to win a WS. You have to be willing to go the distance when your foundation is set. Pick your battles. Don't just coast. People love the way the A's and Rays run their teams. Yet, they always fall short. This might be in part because when you want to be the best vs 29 other competitors. Requires you to stack short term odds of winning over long term. 

It was winning the WS that got the Astro's fans fully back in the seats. Not when they just started to become a winning team again. They gave up Talent AND money to get an over 30 Verlander.

Unless your argument is trading for a highly paid over 30 is better then signing a highly paid over 30 player. Which I find dubious because the 1st one requires you giving up talent. FA does not usually outside of a comp pick. The Astro's were also very interested in locking up Shin Soo Choo when he was an FA. Knowing he was not going to be cheap to get.

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, Scalious said:

That is very idealistic. It's a worthy goal but that is something that is extremely hard to do, while trying to win a WS. When the Astro's were building up. They were doing things most other teams were not. Trying to mimick this idea is going to be harder in 2019 because other teams have caught on. You no longer have the niche you did in 2012 to fully exploit. We might be getting to a point when the Pendulum is swinging back and using FA makes a little more sense(Not this year, but things will change in after 2021)

Especially the part about trading away players when their arb salary gets too high. You want to lock up your core players long terms.

The Astro's don't even do completely like the Rays/A's do. If you want to win a WS. You have to be willing to go the distance when your foundation is set. Pick your battles. Don't just coast. People love the way the A's and Rays run their teams. Yet, they always fall short. This might be in part because when you want to be the best vs 29 other competitors. Requires you to stack short term odds of winning over long term. 

It was winning the WS that got the Astro's fans fully back in the seats. Not when they just started to become a winning team again. They gave up Talent AND money to get an over 30 Verlander.

Unless your argument is trading for a highly paid over 30 is better then signing a highly paid over 30 player. Which I find dubious because the 1st one requires you giving up talent. FA does not usually outside of a comp pick. The Astro's were also very interested in locking up Shin Soo Choo when he was an FA. Knowing he was not going to be cheap to get.

Good post.    I don’t expect us to never sign expensive free agents.   We will just need to pick our spots.   And I don’t have a problem with trading guys a couple years before FA if we have their obvious successors in the pipeline.   If we don’t, that’s another story.   

[Roll Tide]

3 hours ago, Sydnor said:

In his latest article, Connolly looks at the Cozart trade and reports that multiple sources confirm that Elias gave his talent evaluators the directive to looks at players on bad contracts because he believes that he could take on salary in mid-2019 or 2020 to acquire prospects. Based on the Cozart deal and Elias’ response to questions about taking on salary, he believes that Elias does not have the authority to do so. Specifically, he theorizes that because they completed the Bundy trade with the Angels, the O’s could’ve added Cozart to the deal and gotten Wilson or a similar more highly touted prospect. It’s an interesting theory and I think a lot of people would like to see the Orioles use this tactic to acquire talent, but it sounds like Connolly doesn’t believe the Orioles will do so because of budgetary issues. This, he questions how much control Elias actually has to implement his vision

https://theathletic.com/1451254/2019/12/11/connolly-a-trade-not-made-makes-you-wonder-how-much-mike-elias-hands-are-tied-by-orioles-financial-constraints/

Here’s a few things Connolly mentions:

“When Elias joined the Orioles last November, John and Louis Angelos, who have taken over club decisions from their father, publicly stated that Elias would have the financial resources to do what was necessary to turn the ship around.

...

But when asked Tuesday night if he had the rubber-stamp approval to take on a bad contract/prospect combo, Elias said that would be approached on a case-by-case basis.

‘It would have to be something that we would take to (ownership),’ Elias said. ‘But it’s not something that I would say we’re actively out there chasing down.’

You can read that two ways. Ownership has not given Elias the OK to absorb hefty contracts, no matter the reasoning, and probably wouldn’t. Or Elias isn’t particularly interested in conducting that type of business.

I’m not buying the latter. Elias has been too consistent in his message about leaving no talented stone unturned to ignore that boulder.”
 

 

I believe John Angelos announced that Elias had total autonomy. I think it’s safe to assume that he has a budget. Outside of that the first statement would be a lie.

[Going Underground]

35 minutes ago, Scalious said:

That is very idealistic. It's a worthy goal but that is something that is extremely hard to do, while trying to win a WS. When the Astro's were building up. They were doing things most other teams were not. Trying to mimick this idea is going to be harder in 2019 because other teams have caught on. You no longer have the niche you did in 2012 to fully exploit. We might be getting to a point when the Pendulum is swinging back and using FA makes a little more sense(Not this year, but things will change in after 2021)

Especially the part about trading away players when their arb salary gets too high. You want to lock up your core players long terms.

The Astro's don't even do completely like the Rays/A's do. If you want to win a WS. You have to be willing to go the distance when your foundation is set. Pick your battles. Don't just coast. People love the way the A's and Rays run their teams. Yet, they always fall short. This might be in part because when you want to be the best vs 29 other competitors. Requires you to stack short term odds of winning over long term. 

It was winning the WS that got the Astro's fans fully back in the seats. Not when they just started to become a winning team again. They gave up Talent AND money to get an over 30 Verlander.

Unless your argument is trading for a highly paid over 30 is better then signing a highly paid over 30 player. Which I find dubious because the 1st one requires you giving up talent. FA does not usually outside of a comp pick. The Astro's were also very interested in locking up Shin Soo Choo when he was an FA. Knowing he was not going to be cheap to get.

The Astros have had five straight winning seasons. They also now have a high payroll that the owner wants to cut.Carlos Correa might be traded.I keep hearing they are going to be a dynasty.Get back to me in a few years when Greinke and Verlander are 39.

[sgillespie31]

3 hours ago, interloper said:

One of the more interesting things about the rebuild is certainly the lack of budget and the reasoning behind it. I'm hesitant to just call it ownership greed, as I doubt it's that simple. I'd love to know what ownership and Elias have talked about, what the budget plan calls for, if funds are indeed being redirected heavily into infrastructure, if a sale is in the works, if there are significant stadium upgrades in the works, how much the Davis contract is a factor, etc. We just don't really know. So I hesitate to kill them on it right now. 

We do know keeping the budget low was part of the Astros rebuild, and that they had no problems spending when it counted. The Orioles have had a tendency to spend unwisely in the past, so I'm fine with keeping the budget low while Elias gets the foundation built. Then I do expect them to spend again. 

My thoughts exactly, the questions are: WILL they spend when it counts or will we be sheepishly told, "this it folks", and IF they do spend then, will it be wisely?

 

We'll never know if they don't spend at all. 

 

I'm fine with being cheap and patient for a few years. Once we have a window though I expect them to spend to get us all the way through it.

[orioles119]

How about Connolly report and not commentate... that would be great.

[Dipper9]

15 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

I believe John Angelos announced that Elias had total autonomy. I think it’s safe to assume that he has a budget. Outside of that the first statement would be a lie.

Name me any successful business that operates without a budget.  Anyone who is criticizing management because they gave their GM a budget just doesn't understand business.  

[milbest77]

Click-baity title to this thread. Connolly is purely speculating. It’s an opinion piece. And what’s the point of taking on a bad contract at this point anyways? Unless, of course, it involved swapping Davis for said bad contract. 

[Philip]

54 minutes ago, Oriole1940 said:

 

The Bundy trade I hope is not  quantity vs quality.  We will not know for sure

 

I think that’s the point of the trade. Because the guys we received are at the beginning of their development they are inexpensive. But because Mike has faith in the reports he’s gotten on them so far and in his development staff, he thinks they could be something. There’s a bunch of risk involved, of course, and that is why four guys who can be something are better than one guy who will probably be something, at least at this stage of the Build process.

 Also, a guy who will probably be something right now, is it really what he wants. He’d rather gamble for a higher production at a later date. I don’t have a problem with that, the only thing I have a problem with is him saying that wins now aren’t important and I only say this every single time the subject comes up, but 60 wins is better than 50 and 70 is better than 60 and we should win as much as we can without interfering with “the plan“