Trezza: Here's what Orioles are eyeing at Meetings

[VaBird1]

15 hours ago, fitzi22 said:

Oh and by the way this “Draft League” idea seems kinda dumb.  It’s kinda like an Arizona fall league but for guys who aren’t drafted yet.  I give it a coin flip that it will succeed.  That being said I’m sure they are thrilled the #1 attendance Carolina League team will be part of it, maybe even anchor it.

It depends on what you think the role of MLB should be.  I think it is good for baseball as a sport to have these players using wood bats and competing  against a more consistent talent base.  Would be even better to see a league like this sponsored by MLB on every continent.

[Sports Guy]

8 hours ago, Jammer7 said:

Now you know that is not true, and there are other teams with a similar general philosophy. Of course it matters where you draft, and that is the whole point of tanking. You pick high in every round of the rule 4, rule 5 and claims on waivers. It pays to suck for a while. 

So which is it, the Orioles now have an advantage in scouting/drafting or they don’t?  You say you know the historical data but then say this.  
 

Let’s put all of this together for a scenario. Let’s say the Os win 75 games in 2021 and they draft 12th.  In 2020, they pick 5th.  The difference in WAR between the 5th and 12th pick, historically speaking, is 1.5-2 wins.  Now, that isn’t nothing but it’s not much either and a team that “has an advantage in scouting” should easily be able to make that up, right?  That team would find “Clayton Kershaw with the 15th pick” wouldn’t they?  
 

Tanking insures 2 things..drafting really high and having more money to spend in the draft.  Yes, it makes it easier to get the players you target but this is baseball and one player doesn’t turn around a franchise like it does in the NBA or NFL.  If you don’t have the first or second pick (and there is a big drop off even there), it matters a lot less.  
 

I was perfectly fine with them tanking for 1-2 seasons to get those higher picks but I’m not ok with it anymore (wasn’t good with it for 2020 either although I would argue they weren’t tanking last year).  I mean, we took a guy who was a consensus bottom of the top 10 pick with the #2 pick anyway.  That doesn’t mean they are wrong but they likely could have had that player if they drafted 7th as opposed to 2nd. In other words, where they drafted may not have mattered (despite you saying it does matter).

Everything else we discuss about rebuilding can happen whether you are winning or not.  The only difference is that when you are rebuilding, it makes it easier to trade between talent for younger players but that’s not exclusive to a team who is tanking, just as playing young guys isn’t exclusive to a team that is tanking.  The Dodgers have ROY candidates almost every year, for example.  

Everything you like that the Os are doing can be done whether we win 85 games or 65 games in 2021.  The only difference would be the draft slot and the money we have to spend in the draft. 

[Just Regular]

7 hours ago, hoosiers said:

The best place to "invest" is usually a reclamation project or two in the bullpen.

You can't get more reclamation than "out for season" - will be doing "this phase of the rebuild" cartwheels and backflips if Ken Giles or Tommy Kahnle's 2022's get procured on regular terms for this sort of thing.

The Royals and Santana - they're a year ahead of us structurally.   I think they think they have a puncher's chance - Keller, Singer and Bubic may as well be Means, Baumann, and the faster between Rodriguez or Hall.   If our three in 2021 perform like their three did in 2020, you couldn't tell me we didn't have a puncher's chance.   We even have Adley, not Bobby Witt.

[Sports Guy]

31 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

If they had been drafting 10 and got Kerstad anyway they wouldn't have had the pool money to draft Mayo and Baumler.  Just saying.

Ok..but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have been able to sign them anyway...they likely don’t end up with a few of the other guys.

Or they end up getting other players.  The difference in career WAR, historically speaking, 7 picks later in the 5th round is probably about 0.  In other words, maybe they don’t get those guys but they get other players they like.  
 

But yes, the draft allotment is important and a part of tanking.  Still,  if we have an “advantage in scouting” whether we pick 2nd or 10th in the 5th round is meaningless. 

[Sports Guy]

I’m going to bet that there are players signed to contracts and/or traded for packages of players that will make us think, well if that’s all it took, why didn’t we get in on that.  
 

Those are the opportunities I want to see the team take advantage of.

[Can_of_corn]

34 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Ok..but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have been able to sign them anyway...they likely don’t end up with a few of the other guys.

Or they end up getting other players.  The difference in career WAR, historically speaking, 7 picks later in the 5th round is probably about 0.  In other words, maybe they don’t get those guys but they get other players they like.  
 

But yes, the draft allotment is important and a part of tanking.  Still,  if we have an “advantage in scouting” whether we pick 2nd or 10th in the 5th round is meaningless. 

If a guy signs for second round money in the fifth round I question why he wasn't just selected by a team in the second round.

[weams]

2 hours ago, RZNJ said:

If they had been drafting 10 and got Kerstad anyway they wouldn't have had the pool money to draft Mayo and Baumler.  Just saying.

All the tanks that I have seen as successful have really been five seasons worth. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, weams said:

All the tanks that I have seen as successful have really been five seasons worth. 

Braves tanked for three years (2015-2017).  That's only if you consider 90 losses tanking.

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, weams said:

All the tanks that I have seen as successful have really been five seasons worth. 

And it’s absurd that they held their fan bases hostage for that long.  Totally unnecessary.

[Roll Tide]

32 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

And it’s absurd that they held their fan bases hostage for that long.  Totally unnecessary.

I agree ... But the Orioles had meddling ownership that hurt the process and were cheap with scouting , player development , and other stuff. I think that makes Peter Angelos one of the worst owners in baseball history.

[HowAboutThat]

5 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

The way you twist the words in saying is truly a gift.  You seem to have zero idea what I’m saying yet you think you do and are just posting a lot of stuff that doesn’t have anything to do with what I’m saying.

I’ve been reading your comments and responding to them as clearly as possible.  I hope things Open up and we can go to a baseball game this summer together, we can trade beers and barbs.

Meanwhile, I will hope for lots of low dollar free agent signings, because that’s what we need. And I will also hope for lots of youngsters getting long looks this season, because that is also what we need.

[Yardball85]

17 hours ago, Philip said:

This is starting to get fun.

so to clarify. You don’t want the Orioles to sign Santana. You don’t want them to spend 17 million on a guy who won’t help the Team improve meaningfully.....um... so you want us to spend 17 million on a guy who WILL help the team meaningfully? Great. And that would be whom, pray tell?
Ok. Let’s assume there is such a guy, and we sign such a guy, even though he won’t help the team meaningfully. What he WILL do is cost 17 million, and take playing time away from the youngsters. I would rather see the youngsters.

(I wanted to see David Hess until he showed he was terrible. I had to continue to see him for too long after that but at least I know he’s terrible, and that’s time well spent.)

And again, one guy wouldn’t help. Our Lord Himself can’t help yet because he’s only one guy, and one guy, even of such Lofty abilities, won’t pull the team out of the doldrums yet. The best player in baseball history hasn’t helped the Angels out of THEIR Doldrums.

It is not logical to sign one guy that fits the “17 million for Santana even though he won’t meaningfully help the Royals,” concept. Because he’ll be wasted money, and he won’t fix anything.

We need to sign cheap flyers like Karns and Milone and Iglesias, give paying time to our youngsters, and acquire talent. It’s a 9- man team. We need 9 solid guys, and we cannot acquire them in one offseason. We just can’t. That’s why the offseason is hard. We just aren’t ready yet.

Thats just the way the ball rolls these days.

Enjoy the teething pains of the young guys, send the bad ones away to make room for more young guys, and rejoice when John Means 2.0 and 3.0 reveal themselves.

What SG is saying (and I agree with him) is you can sign guys who won't block the young players from getting experience (a decent SP, for instance) or a decent middle infielder so the team is competitive and you give the fans something to be excited about.  Elias is just spitting in the fans faces with offseasons like this and just being like, here's another losing season.  In other words, you can make the team bearable to watch/not awful, while still doing the rebuild the right way.  Would I sign Santana? No.  Would I sign someone else for $10-15M to help the team until all the young guys get here?  Sure.

[BohKnowsBmore]

8 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Ok..but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have been able to sign them anyway...they likely don’t end up with a few of the other guys.

Or they end up getting other players.  The difference in career WAR, historically speaking, 7 picks later in the 5th round is probably about 0.  In other words, maybe they don’t get those guys but they get other players they like.  
 

But yes, the draft allotment is important and a part of tanking.  Still,  if we have an “advantage in scouting” whether we pick 2nd or 10th in the 5th round is meaningless. 

You're still making an apples-oranges comparison here. 

[Sports Guy]

Just now, BohKnowsBmore said:

You're still making an apples-oranges comparison here. 

No I’m not.  It’s a comparison within the context of the discussion.