Rebuild mode or Sell mode?

[Frobby]

21 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well it’s an opinion, so I don’t think you can say it’s wrong.

And the spending now is also for someone(s) who can help you later.  I think they should be adding a starter.  I wanted Stroman but that obviously won’t work now.  But obtaining a starter that can be here for 3-4 years?  Yes, they should do that imo.  
 

I think they should be obtaining better options for the left side of the IF.  
 

Zero reason why we should have to watch guys who, if they are lucky, are replacement level players.  That’s lazy, cheap and unnecessary at this point.  

You keep calling it “lazy” but I disagree with that.    It’s a strategic decision, that people can agree with or not.    It’s certainly cheap in the sense that it costs less money.    But I don’t think Elias is adopting this approach out of laziness.    

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, LookinUp said:

Supplement it with who? Specifically? Are we blocking people with the guys we're adding? Doesn't that philosophy contradict yourself?

Also, we're a year or two away from where San Diego was last offseason. That is when they got Machado and started making huge trades, from a farm system that was very superior to ours.

We might agree on specific players. Heck, I could be talked into spending at SS, for example, if we think the guy will be producing in 2-3 years. I kind of hate the 3B options, so if a deal could be worked out for a guy like Cronenworth who might fit there, I'm ok with it. But I'm ok trading relief pitchers or guys that maybe others value more than us (Diaz possible there, in theory). I'm not ok trading guys like Hays though. The value isn't there. I'll take the health risk.

You aren’t blocking starting pitching hopefuls by adding a good starter.  If you can do that, you do it.

I would look for a 2-3 year option at SS but one ton likely could move within 2 years if your in house options look good.

Third base is probably something you would need to trade for.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

You keep calling it “lazy” but I disagree with that.    It’s a strategic decision, that people can agree with or not.    It’s certainly cheap in the sense that it costs less money.    But I don’t think Elias is adopting this approach out of laziness.    

It’s lazy because you aren’t exploring all avenues and coming up with better options.  There are several teams out there loaded in players on the left side of the IF.  No way you can make me believe that a viable trade option isn’t there that is beneficial for both sides.

Note:  I realize I don’t know what Elias is doing but if he acquires one of the names we frequently mention, that is lazy to me.

[hoosiers]

6 hours ago, Philip said:

I do not think “luck“ can be denied. There are two number one draft picks involved. One did not sign, and was eventually drafted by the Indians and was a historic failure. The Astros got a compensatory pick for not signing him. They actually got a do over, a Mulligan, and the second time they had a no-brainer pick and chose a winner. That’s all luck anyway you slice it.

The other pic, also a number one pick, was traded to the Phillies and was also a miserable fiasco.

That is also luck.

Prospects fail all the time.  The important thing is to have as many picks (and as many higher picks or higher budgets) as possible. 

Think of the 2012-16 run made by the Orioles and the large number of pitching prospects we had that did not pan out appropriately - starting with high picks Matusz and Bundy (maybe not failures, but not really successful picks).  Sure, the run was fueled by low cost, young players drafted and acquired via trade - Jones, Wieters, Machado, Tillman, Britton, Davis, etc.

One can always point to failed draft picks across many teams and high up in the draft.  Strength in numbers is critical - imo - since one never knows which players will pan out and which won't - (which separately is part of my criticism for the Yaz trade).

[LookinUp]

44 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

You aren’t blocking starting pitching hopefuls by adding a good starter.  If you can do that, you do it.

I would look for a 2-3 year option at SS but one ton likely could move within 2 years if your in house options look good.

Third base is probably something you would need to trade for.

I mean Charlie Morton got $15m. Drew Smyly got $11m. Brett Anderson, Chase Anderson, Garrett Richards? Taijuan Walker? Spending $15 million for those guys? 
http://www.espn.com/mlb/freeagents/_/position/sp

What are Simmons and Gregorious going to demand? 

Your three additions will add $20-$30 million to the payroll and the prospect cost of getting a 3B. I'm in favor of all of it, but only if we think the guys we are adding are here for the beginning of our playoff run. I'm not in favor of spending that money in hopes of trading them before a playoff run. That's throwing a ton of money into mediocrity with the hope that someone bails us out with prospects on the back end.

If I'm spending, it's with the goal of winning a lot. Not for winning a little.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, LookinUp said:

I mean Charlie Morton got $15m. Drew Smyly got $11m. Brett Anderson, Chase Anderson, Garrett Richards? Taijuan Walker? Spending $15 million for those guys? 
http://www.espn.com/mlb/freeagents/_/position/sp

What are Simmons and Gregorious going to demand? 

Your three additions will add $20-$30 million to the payroll and the prospect cost of getting a 3B. I'm in favor of all of it, but only if we think the guys we are adding are here for the beginning of our playoff run. I'm not in favor of spending that money in hopes of trading them before a playoff run. That's throwing a ton of money into mediocrity with the hope that someone bails us out with prospects on the back end.

If I'm spending, it's with the goal of winning a lot. Not for winning a little.

I don’t know why you are worried about the spending as long the spending doesn’t hurt you long term and I have never advocated for that.

You keep mentioning 20-30M as if thats an amount of money that matters long term.

[LookinUp]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

I don’t know why you are worried about the spending as long the spending doesn’t hurt you long term and I have never advocated for that.

You keep mentioning 20-30M as if thats an amount of money that matters long term.

It's someone else's money and has no effect on the future, so why care, right?

I don't believe the no effect on the future part. It could effect cash flow. It could effect a sale of the team. It's reasonable for an owner/GM to be cost conscious. There is always an excuse not to. If you don't have sound operating principles, your costs won't make sense. And back to the Philly article we go again.

[Sports Guy]

Just now, LookinUp said:

It's someone else's money and has no effect on the future, so why care, right?

I don't believe the no effect on the future part. It could effect cash flow. It could effect a sale of the team. It's reasonable for an owner/GM to be cost conscious. There is always an excuse not to. If you don't have sound operating principles, your costs won't make sense. And back to the Philly article we go again.

20-30M is nothing.

Take the Davis contract.  It’s an awful contract but it is spent and has no impact on us.  The Payroll is nothing right now.  You can easily spend a lot more and get around that contract and win.  
 

When you take in the amount of money these teams do, a bad contract or 2 isn’t going to hurt you.  
 

Let’s say the Os traded for Darvish and took on all money.  That’s about 60M for the next 3 years.  That 20M spent per year is a drop in the bucket overall.  The team recently spent 160M on the payroll and they are going to have a lot of everyday players making no money and perhaps at least one, playing at an MVP level basically for free.  

[LookinUp]

23 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

20-30M is nothing.

Take the Davis contract.  It’s an awful contract but it is spent and has no impact on us.  The Payroll is nothing right now.  You can easily spend a lot more and get around that contract and win.  
 

When you take in the amount of money these teams do, a bad contract or 2 isn’t going to hurt you.  
 

Let’s say the Os traded for Darvish and took on all money.  That’s about 60M for the next 3 years.  That 20M spent per year is a drop in the bucket overall.  The team recently spent 160M on the payroll and they are going to have a lot of everyday players making no money and perhaps at least one, playing at an MVP level basically for free.  

You're operating in the land of the possible. I'm thinking of the land of the reasonable. 

It's unreasonable for you (the GM) to ask me (the owner) to throw tens of millions of dollars into a product that will be marginally better but still essentially guaranteed to lose. And you (the GM) are likely to ask me (the owner) to do it again next year. And when we get better, you are going to ask me to just make that extra investment to put us over the top, but you'll be ignoring the $60 million extra I spend the last 2-3 years and waiving it away like it's nothing.

You think it has "no impact on us." I think that's absurd.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

You're operating in the land of the possible. I'm thinking of the land of the reasonable. 

It's unreasonable for you (the GM) to ask me (the owner) to throw tens of millions of dollars into a product that will be marginally better but still essentially guaranteed to lose. And you (the GM) are likely to ask me (the owner) to do it again next year. And when we get better, you are going to ask me to just make that extra investment to put us over the top, but you'll be ignoring the $60 million extra I spend the last 2-3 years and waiving it away like it's nothing.

You think it has "no impact on us." I think that's absurd.

But it does have impact, that’s where you are wrong.  Making the product more appealing to your fan base is impactful.  Teaching your young players how to win is impactful.  Putting good talent around your inexperienced talent is impactful.  Having guys on the roster that can teach the young kids how to be a professional is impactful. Adding talent for winning time later is impactful.

You are solely defining impactful as being able to be a contender if you are going to spend the money.  That’s wrong.

[Philip]

42 minutes ago, hoosiers said:

Prospects fail all the time.  The important thing is to have as many picks (and as many higher picks or higher budgets) as possible. 

Think of the 2012-16 run made by the Orioles and the large number of pitching prospects we had that did not pan out appropriately - starting with high picks Matusz and Bundy (maybe not failures, but not really successful picks).  Sure, the run was fueled by low cost, young players drafted and acquired via trade - Jones, Wieters, Machado, Tillman, Britton, Davis, etc.

One can always point to failed draft picks across many teams and high up in the draft.  Strength in numbers is critical - imo - since one never knows which players will pan out and which won't - (which separately is part of my criticism for the Yaz trade).

Oh of course, I don’t doubt that for a bit, but that doesn’t refute my comment that the Astros, with two straight number one picks, chose two guys that were each miserable failures, yet traded one before he failed, and didn’t sign the other and were given a compensatory draft pick which they used on a no-brainer prospect.

thats luck.

If we had not signed, say, Hobgood, and been given a compensatory draft pick in lieu, That would’ve been luck as well, Because we would have successfully dodged a bullet.

[LookinUp]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

But it does have impact, that’s where you are wrong.  Making the product more appealing to your fan base is impactful.  Teaching your young players how to win is impactful.  Putting good talent around your inexperienced talent is impactful.  Having guys on the roster that can teach the young kids how to be a professional is impactful. Adding talent for winning time later is impactful.

You are solely defining impactful as being able to be a contender if you are going to spend the money.  That’s wrong.

No. I'm scrutinizing your philosophy, which is general. I agree that some moves might make sense. You can weigh the cost-benefit. But if the goal is to get three upgrades at P, SS and 3B who are actually good, you're spending a lot of capital to do that. It's the specifics that matter. I don't want Justin Turner and his veteranocity at $15m even though I think he'd be a good addition to this team w/r/t the intangibles you're pointing to now.

Or maybe I do? I could be talked into it, but not if the goal is 5 more wins. There has to be more to the goal.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Philip said:

Oh of course, I don’t doubt that for a bit, but that doesn’t refute my comment that the Astros, with two straight number one picks, chose two guys that were each miserable failures, yet traded one before he failed, and didn’t sign the other and were given a compensatory draft pick which they used on a no-brainer prospect.

thats luck.

If we had not signed, say, Hobgood, and been given a compensatory draft pick in lieu, That would’ve been luck as well, Because we would have successfully dodged a bullet.

If he hadn't of had the physical issue that caused the Astros to not sign him he very well might not have been a "miserable failure".  The Astros had no way of knowing that the issue existed when they selected him.

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, LookinUp said:

You're operating in the land of the possible. I'm thinking of the land of the reasonable. 

It's unreasonable for you (the GM) to ask me (the owner) to throw tens of millions of dollars into a product that will be marginally better but still essentially guaranteed to lose. And you (the GM) are likely to ask me (the owner) to do it again next year. And when we get better, you are going to ask me to just make that extra investment to put us over the top, but you'll be ignoring the $60 million extra I spend the last 2-3 years and waiving it away like it's nothing.

You think it has "no impact on us." I think that's absurd.

I’m on your side of this debate.   However, you do have to consider what impact there is on the fan base of fielding a non-competitive team several years running vs. fielding a losing but respectable team several years running.  I don’t think the answer to that question is obvious one way or the other.   I’ll only say that I’d rather experience 3-4 years of really terrible teams than 14 years of 63-79 win teams.    I’ve already experienced the latter and it got very old.    So if we can be a winning team sooner by being truly terrible for a while, I’m fine with another year or two of this.   Anyway, the truth is the major league team’s record has gotten somewhat better in each of Elias’ two seasons.   We’ll see about 2021.    

[Sports Guy]

Just now, LookinUp said:

No. I'm scrutinizing your philosophy, which is general. I agree that some moves might make sense. You can weigh the cost-benefit. But if the goal is to get three upgrades at P, SS and 3B who are actually good, you're spending a lot of capital to do that. It's the specifics that matter. I don't want Justin Turner and his veteranocity at $15m even though I think he'd be a good addition to this team w/r/t the intangibles you're pointing to now.

Or maybe I do? I could be talked into it, but not if the goal is 5 more wins. There has to be more to the goal.

Of course who you sign or trade for matters.  No one has said differently.  I hav already stated a number of times that I’m not making big moves for a long term SS for at least a year, for example.

But this idea that they have to keep losing so they can rebuild is a joke.  It’s nothing but a lie and the fans are falling for it.  It’s nothing more than an excuse to be cheap.