Jump to content

How does Elias maintain a Top 10 farm system without high draft choices


wildcard

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Yea, something like that. 

All of this is contingent on what the next CBA looks like.  I'm skeptical they'll do anything too radical, but it might be much more friendly for non-superstar older players, as well as younger players.  We've reached the point where everyone agrees that signing 30-year-olds to 8/200 deals is ludicrous, except for the 33-year-olds in the middle of those deals hitting .232 with 11 homers.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see the service time prior to free agency cut back a few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I’m not really for giving anyone that kind of money...Trout is an exception to that for me.  He’s a blank check player for me.

 

I'm hoping Bauer does the one year deal thing and pitches well.

 

That's the type of thing that could cause some collusion among front offices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

The O's are not likely to deliver international players to the majors in the next three years is my guess.  So how does Elias keep a Top 10 farm system?

Dude, what's the obsession with having a top 10 system?  Maybe they're not likely to deliver international players in the next three years but so what?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Aristotelian said:

Good point. At some point we can gut the system if it means delivering a couple of WS. 

Yes but you should have enough depth to where even if you gut it, you have talent.

The Dodgers have been a good example of that.  
 

The key is that you keep your elite guys and trade your good to very good guys..like we just saw the Padres do, for example.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I wouldn’t be surprised to see the service time prior to free agency cut back a few years.

I've become convinced that the whole concept of tying service time to free agency needs to go away.  Everyone becomes a free agent at 27 or 28 or whatever.  Then you can promote players based on merit, instead of playing silly games.

The NHL does something like that.  But I won't count on MLB or the MLBPA being that creative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I've become convinced that the whole concept of tying service time to free agency needs to go away.  Everyone becomes a free agent at 27 or 28 or whatever.  Then you can promote players based on merit, instead of playing silly games.

The NHL does something like that.  But I won't count on MLB or the MLBPA being that creative.

Juan Soto as an Arb 6 player....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Teams like the O's and Rays would face some hard choices.  You might trade stars at 25 or 26 because you can't or won't pay Arb 6 rates, which would probably be indistinguishable from free agent rates, just on one-year deals.

I'll say under the current system you have arb 3 and 4 players who would receive more in arbitration than they would on the FA market, at least as a AAV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lucky_13 said:

Don't be afraid to trade guys you can likely replace even when you're winning like the Rays do. 

Something Duquette never did when he could have sold high on Jim Johnson, Bud Norris, even Zach Britton

Duquette may have been under instructions to keep the "window" propped open as long as possible at the expense of the future.   So when the farm system didn't have guys ready, he hung on to the vets to squeeze every last ounce out of them keeping that window open.   Remember Angelos' quote about how he didn't believe in rebuilding because the fans who bought tickets deserved to see a team trying to win.

And he kept it open until the end of August 2017, when we were only a few games out of a playoff spot.   And one bad September wasn't enough to convince them there wasn't hope in 2018.

Not only did management want that, but if Duquette could have reached the playoffs four out of 6 years with a team that had 14 consecutive losing seasons, he might have felt that would look good on his resume.  Instead the 2018 collapse to the worst record of any team in most of our lifetimes laid bare the consequences of his strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Duquette may have been under instructions to keep the "window" propped open as long as possible at the expense of the future.   So when the farm system didn't have guys ready, he hung on to the vets to squeeze every last ounce out of them keeping that window open.   Remember Angelos' quote about how he didn't believe in rebuilding because the fans who bought tickets deserved to see a team trying to win.

And he kept it open until the end of August 2017, when we were only a few games out of a playoff spot.   And one bad September wasn't enough to convince them there wasn't hope in 2018.

Not only did management want that, but if Duquette could have reached the playoffs four out of 6 years with a team that had 14 consecutive losing seasons, he might have felt that would look good on his resume.  Instead the 2018 collapse to the worst record of any team in most of our lifetimes laid bare the consequences of his strategy.

I think Dan was 100% on board with going for a ring every year he was here.  I think he wanted to win very badly after Boston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, be good at drafting and developing talent. Our system has Rodriguez (11th overall), Hall (21st overall) and Mountcastle (36th). Baumann was a 3rd rounder. Akin was 54th overall. Hays was a 3rd rounder. You could argue this org has done a nice job lately. It would be nice to hit on a Jake Arrieta or two as well.

Second, acquire good talent in trades. We're hopeful on Kremer and Diaz. Others are farther away, but if we're selling, hopefully we find the right guys in return.

Third, acquire international talent. Several of the best players in the game were't even part of the draft. We're finally in that game. Who knows, maybe we already have a difference maker in this org who is just very young and under the radar. This is a stated goal of Elias, so hopefully he can do it.

Fourth, if we do contend, really try not to give up Hader, Davies and Rodriguez types unless you get true impact back. Knowing what you have in-house helps. When the time comes, I hope that Elias will be patient for a year or two and not blow his load during our first legit playoff run. It's very possible that promoting our own guys will work out much better than trading for other guys in the long run if we're as good at this drafting and developing guys as we hope.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

All of this is contingent on what the next CBA looks like.  I'm skeptical they'll do anything too radical, but it might be much more friendly for non-superstar older players, as well as younger players.  We've reached the point where everyone agrees that signing 30-year-olds to 8/200 deals is ludicrous, except for the 33-year-olds in the middle of those deals hitting .232 with 11 homers.

What do the 34-year-olds hitting .122 with 0 HRs think? Bonus points if they have an OPS+ of -2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • Great post.  I like your optimism, and I'll try to believe this team can turn things around just in the nick of time like some classic Hollywood baseball movie.
    • I think Elias has mostly done an excellent job with one exception -- he seems like he treats the bullpen like an afterthought.  I doubt that will happen again this coming offseason. I don't really blame him for the current offensive struggles overall.  Just too many injuries late in the season.  That said I don't understand how we went from dealing Austin Hays, Connor Norby and Ryan McKenna just so we could land the right handed bat of, gulp, Austin Slater.  
    • Man this team has no shot. Right now they may not even make it. 
    • Most of these guys are only playing because of injuries to starters.  But Austin Slater I'm guessing was brought in to replace the traded Austin Hays.  The problem is that Slater has shown little ability to hit lefties this year, after hitting them pretty well up to this season.  This must be why two teams dropped him before the O's picked him up.  I know he was let go much earlier in the season, but is Ryan McKenna actually worse than this guy?  I don't understand how the front office went from releasing McKenna to later trading Hays and Norby -- thinking their right handed bats could adequately be replaced by someone like Slater.  
    • I'm willing to give Elias some rope because of the strict limitations he was under with JA but he better not be so damn conservative again this year and let every serviceable FA out there sign with other teams while he's busy picking up reclamation projects again. Minus Burns of course.  
    • I agree completely that it’s irrelevant whether it worked.  But I don’t agree that bunting is clearly the right decision in either scenario, and I think that decision gets worse if it’s intended to be a straight sacrifice rather than a bunt for a hit. To be clear, the outcome you’re seeking in tonight’s situation, for example — sacrifice the runners over to 2nd/3rd — lowers both your run expectancy for the inning (from 1.44 to 1.39) and your win expectancy for the game (from 38.8% to 37.1%). It increases the likelihood of scoring one run, but it decreases the likelihood of scoring two runs (which you needed to tie) and certainly of scoring three or more runs (which you needed to take the lead).  And that’s if you succeed in getting them to 2nd/3rd. Research indicates that 15-30% of sacrifice bunt attempts fail, so you have to bake in a pretty significant percentage of the time that you’d just be giving up a free out (or even just two free strikes, as on Sunday). The bunt attempt in the 3rd inning on Sunday (which my gut hates more than if they’d done it today) actually is less damaging to the win probability — decreasing it only very slightly from 60.2% to 59.8%. More time left in the game to make up for giving up outs, I guess, and the scoreboard payoff is a bit better (in the sense that at least you’d have a better chance to take the lead).   At the bottom of it, these things mostly come down to gut and pure chance. The percentages are rarely overwhelming in either direction, and so sometimes even a “lower-percentage” play may work better under some circumstances. You would have bunted both times. I wouldn’t have bunted either time. Hyde bunted one time but not the other. I don’t know that anyone is an idiot (or even clearly “wrong”) for their preference. Either approach could have worked. Sadly, none of them actually did.
    • Wasn't Hyde always thought of more or less as a caretaker? I'm on the fence about him coming back. I totally get the injuries and that needs to be taking into consideration but man this collapse some heads have to roll who's I'm  mot sure 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...