Jump to content

Chris Shaw claimed from Giants


weams

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

Elias would have been irresponsible to spend 12m for a first round pick (18th overall pick).  Many first rounders are never impact players.   Meoli is speculating to  say  that   "“budgetary considerations” might be behind that".   Elias myself says on a case vs case basis he has to determine if he would even ask ownership to make such a deal.   There is a cost versus  risk equation the has to be considered here.    That was not done for the Chris Davis deal and we a living with that mistake.  Its probably not smart to spend 12m on a player that may never get out of the minors.

Cozart would have been of no use to the O's at a 12M price in 2020 even if there was a full season.  He was not going to make them a winner.  And he is a free agent after the season at 35 years old.

I can't read Connolly article.

This has been discussed before, it isn't just the draft pick it is also the additional pool allocation.

As for if the #18 pick is worth 12M?  I guess it would depend on the situation.   I can see it being worth it for some teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

This has been discussed before, it isn't just the draft pick it is also the additional pool allocation.

As for if the #18 pick is worth 12M?  I guess it would depend on the situation.   I can see it being worth it for some teams.

The first pick in the draft cost 8m.   The 15th pick cost about 3.3m.   Spending 12m on that pick is something the Dodgers or Yankee might do.  But not a responible mid market team.   There are teams that have large markets and more money as a result and the way to beat them in not trying to outspend them.   

Elias is doing the right thing to beat the big market teams.  Better analytics,  player development, sensible trades for prospects,  international signings are all things that will get the O's there.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

The first pick in the draft cost 8m.   The 15th pick cost about 3.3m.   Spending 12m on that pick is something the Dodgers or Yankee might do.  But not a responible mid market team.   There are teams that have large markets and more money as a result and the way to beat them in not trying to outspend them.   

Elias is doing the right thing to beat the big market teams.  Better analytics,  player development, sensible trades for prospects,  international signings are all things that will get the O's there.  

Would you spend 12M for a DL Hall or Ryan Mountcastle?

Tying the value of the pick to the draft allotment tied to the pick is pretty dubious.  If teams valued them so little why is having a qualifying offer such a detriment for free agents?

The Braves spent roughly 3M for the #76 pick ( $838,900 slot allotment).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, wildcard said:

The first pick in the draft cost 8m.   The 15th pick cost about 3.3m.   Spending 12m on that pick is something the Dodgers or Yankee might do.  But not a responible mid market team.   There are teams that have large markets and more money as a result and the way to beat them in not trying to outspend them.   

Elias is doing the right thing to beat the big market teams.  Better analytics,  player development, sensible trades for prospects,  international signings are all things that will get the O's there.  

I think to analyze this correctly you have to have a good idea of the excess value of draft picks.    In other words, let’s say a pick at a certain point in the draft on average produces $20 mm in value, and it will cost $12 mm to sign that pick.    That is a move that makes sense.

Here is a good article on the topic. https://blogs.fangraphs.com/an-update-on-how-to-value-draft-picks/ 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

Elias would have been irresponsible to spend 12m for a first round pick (18th overall pick).  Many first rounders are never impact players.   Meoli is speculating to  say  that   "“budgetary considerations” might be behind that".   Elias myself says on a case vs case basis he has to determine if he would even ask ownership to make such a deal.   There is a cost versus  risk equation the has to be considered here.    That was not done for the Chris Davis deal and we a living with that mistake.  Its probably not smart to spend 12m on a player that may never get out of the minors.

Cozart would have been of no use to the O's at a 12M price in 2020 even if there was a full season.  He was not going to make them a winner.  And he is a free agent after the season at 35 years old.

I can't read Connolly article because of the firewall.

He wouldn't have been irresponsible to do that.  That is just foolish to say and I am sure if he had done it, you would have said it was a smart move.

 BTW, I have no idea why you are even mentioning Cozart. He is irrelevant to the deal.  You could cut him the same you got him.  You do it for the prospect.

That being said, its not really the point....its clear that Elias WANTS to do that and he is saying ownership wouldn't let him.  The Connolly article just goes further into that point.

Either way, you asked for evidence that he said it, so there it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

 

Elias is doing the right thing to beat the big market teams.  Better analytics,  player development, sensible trades for prospects,  international signings are all things that will get the O's there.  

You do realize that most, if not all of the big market teams are doing this as well?  You do realize that you don't have to rebuild to accomplish any of these things, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

He wouldn't have been irresponsible to do that.  That is just foolish to say and I am sure if he had done it, you would have said it was a smart move.

 

That being said, its not really the point....its clear that Elias WANTS to do that and he is saying ownership wouldn't let him.  The Connolly article just goes further into that point.

Either way, you asked for evidence that he said it, so there it is.

The article I read did not say that.   Meoli speculated that.   I don't know what Connolly said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, wildcard said:

The article I read did not say that.   Meoli speculated that.   I don't know what Connolly said.

Meoli wrote what Elias said.  Read it and the read between the lines.  Its not that hard to come to that conclusion especially knowing the family as we all do.

As for the Connolly article...Some excerpts:

Quote

 

Orioles general manager Mike Elias repeatedly has said every possible avenue of talent acquisition will be tapped to get the organization back to sustainable competitiveness.

That includes opening the dormant international pipeline, being laser-focused on the amateur draft and trading big-league commodities for minor leaguers who may help down the road.

In one year, Elias and his group have jumped knee-deep into all of those areas.

But there’s another avenue, a less-traveled road maybe, that it appears Elias has sidestepped. Something that, according to sources, the young executive wanted to explore a year ago and hasn’t been able to make happen. Something, frankly, that appears to be out of his control — which is not a good sign.

And that avenue is adding a bad contract from another team in order to acquire a legitimate prospect in return.

The best guess here is that Orioles’ ownership has tied Elias’ hands on boosting payroll even if the move ultimately helps replenish a farm system that is desperately trying to improve.

 

Quote

 

Elias never said it was something the Orioles couldn’t do. Or that the possibility was even presented to him. That’s not Elias’ style, discussing what could have happened but didn’t.

But consider a few things here:

  1. According to multiple sources, last winter Elias gave his talent evaluators the directive to keep a discerning scouting eye on players with unwieldy contracts to see if they have anything left in the tank. Because he believed back then that he could take on money in mid-2019 or 2020 if it meant adding a top prospect or two in tandem.
  2. Unlike the Giants, the Orioles could actually use Cozart if he is healthy enough to play. He doesn’t even have to be very good on this awful squad; he’d help fill the current vacancy at shortstop created by the trade/salary dump of Jonathan Villar to the Miami Marlins. Plus, Cozart’s salary would almost be a wash with Villar’s projected $10.4 million now off the books.
  3. Elias and Angels’ GM Billy Eppler consummated a trade last week, with the Orioles sending Dylan Bundy to the Angels for four pitching prospects. I’m sure it didn’t slip Eppler’s mind at the time that he wanted to move Cozart or that the Orioles needed a middle infielder. And the Orioles obviously were familiar with the Angels’ 2019 draft since they acquired two pitchers from it in the Bundy deal.

So, if you connect some presumptive dots, you can suggest the Orioles could have traded Villar and $2-plus million for Marlins minor league lefty Easton Lucas, Cozart and the highly touted Wilson. A rather fortuitous chain of events that now feels like a missed opportunity.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More from the article:
 

 

Quote

 

Elias is way too conscientious and way too fixated on building talent not to heavily pursue that scenario if he had the go-ahead. So, you have to think he couldn’t pull the trigger financially.

Eppler, talking in generalities to reporters Tuesday, offered this about trading Cozart: “I was a little surprised more teams didn’t jump in on the opportunity, but everybody’s got different circumstances that they operate under.”

He didn’t mention the Orioles specifically.

But it’s becoming clearer what circumstances Elias is operating under.

He already shed roughly $16 million from the 2020 payroll last week. His team’s 26-man roster probably will be in the $60-$65 million range on Opening Day. Maybe lower.

 

Quote

 

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly agree that the O's are being cheap. The pattern is established. I also think it's reasonable considering Covid, PA's health and its potential implications for an ownership change in the next 12-24 months. 

I don't have any inside knowledge, but it sure seems like the org is being prepared for sale. Spending another million to win another game in 2021 doesn't seem to be high on the priority list. 

As for roster composition, it would be nice if we could find a LH hitting guy. That's assuming Davis is gone, which at some point he will be. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

I certainly agree that the O's are being cheap. The pattern is established. I also think it's reasonable considering Covid, PA's health and its potential implications for an ownership change in the next 12-24 months. 

I don't have any inside knowledge, but it sure seems like the org is being prepared for sale. Spending another million to win another game in 2021 doesn't seem to be high on the priority list. 

As for roster composition, it would be nice if we could find a LH hitting guy. That's assuming Davis is gone, which at some point he will be. 

If the O's have a group of right-handed hitters that hit right-handed pitching well,  why would they need more left handed hitting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, wildcard said:

If the O's have a group of right-handed hitters that hit right-handed pitching well,  why would they need more left handed hitting?

Because over time right handers usually hit left handers better than RHP? 

Don't get me wrong, it's not a hill I'd die on. I'd much rather they find a guy who adds something that isn't on the roster (great defense, baserunning, a bat that compliments us at a position of need). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

I certainly agree that the O's are being cheap. The pattern is established. I also think it's reasonable considering Covid, PA's health and its potential implications for an ownership change in the next 12-24 months. 

I don't have any inside knowledge, but it sure seems like the org is being prepared for sale. Spending another million to win another game in 2021 doesn't seem to be high on the priority list. 

 

Yea, this can’t be overstated enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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...