NL VP of Scouting : " It’s embarrassing to the sport what they’re doing, or aren’t doing."

[Tony-OH]

50 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

What do you think of McGregor's comment about Rutschman having issues with the high heat?

He didn't say that. He said "They're (pitchers) throwing it by him right now!" 

I don't know what he meant by it or what he was using to come to that conclusion, but I felt his plan at the plate was lacking in several ABs that I saw this spring and he's always and I mean literally, almost always hitting with two strikes. 

i don't think it's a bat speed issue, but his need to develop a better plan of attack against professional pitching. I'm sure it was easy to take pitches until you got to two strikes against college guys because they didn't have the put away stuff that he's going to see in pro ball, particularly as he gets to the upper level.

I'm not a fan of his extreme upper cut swing either. I know the game has changed but he has a pronounced upper cut swing that leaves him little room for timing errors and will lead to him fouling off a lot of hittable pitches and striking out. 

[LTO's]

1 minute ago, eddie83 said:

Obviously at some point you have to try to fill holes with legit talent. The issue as you know is FA isn’t a great market to do that. 

Mid-level FAs are constantly being low-balled and accepting short term low investment type deals. That is in part why I find it so funny that an actual exec would criticize the Orioles for not participating in that market with a young, inexperienced core. What's the benefit? Would Joc Pederson improve attendance and TV ratings? Highly doubt that. Teams are also unwilling to part with impact prospects for short term rentals. So even if the O's signed a good FA and he performed well enough to trade him would that value be that much more than what they got for someone like Milone? Seems doubtful. 

[eddie83]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

If you trade for a player, they have to come.

And no, the Royals (like every other team) will be good because of who they develop but adding supplemental pieces can be helpful.

Sure. I get that. If you want to deal Santander and get a legit piece that works. Something along those lines. 
 

Clearly adding supplemental players helps. Look at Pearce, McLouth etc. 

 

I go back to the late 2000’s. Millar, Huff, Hernandez etc all signed here as FA’s because nobody else wanted them. 
 

The OF, C and 1B is solid for now. If you are going to spend it has to be on a 3B, SS or 2nd and course pitching. My guess is when they rest of the prospects arrive they will be more aggressive in FA and willing to deal prospects for legit talent. They aren’t there yet. I’m not happy to lose 95 plus again but this organization due to the owner was a dumpster fire 3 years ago. 

[HowAboutThat]

5 hours ago, interloper said:

I could not shrug harder.

Thank you for writing this, instead of, “I could care less.” @Yossarian and I thank you!

[Redskins Rick]

27 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

He didn't say that. He said "They're (pitchers) throwing it by him right now!" 

I don't know what he meant by it or what he was using to come to that conclusion, but I felt his plan at the plate was lacking in several ABs that I saw this spring and he's always and I mean literally, almost always hitting with two strikes. 

i don't think it's a bat speed issue, but his need to develop a better plan of attack against professional pitching. I'm sure it was easy to take pitches until you got to two strikes against college guys because they didn't have the put away stuff that he's going to see in pro ball, particularly as he gets to the upper level.

I'm not a fan of his extreme upper cut swing either. I know the game has changed but he has a pronounced upper cut swing that leaves him little room for timing errors and will lead to him fouling off a lot of hittable pitches and striking out. 

appreciate the explanation.

[Sports Guy]

14 minutes ago, SteveA said:

So -- not long term guys, for the most part.

Better than what we have.

Yet on the free agent market or cheaply available in trade where we wouldn't have to give up prospects to get them.

That's a pretty tall order, if you ask me.   Most good players on the free agent market are going to command an expensive long term contract.   Most players in general on the free agent market are past the top of the talent/age curve and declining.

That leaves lesser free agents... say Freddy Galvis.   Or guys who aren't good enough to make their team but are out of options but might improve us... say Adam Plutko.

Sounds like the Orioles are doing what you want.   And you have been pressed multiple times to give examples of who you might have wanted and the only  one you have given is Stroman but the QO negated that possibility of him meeting your requirements.

For all your hand wringing in this thread, it seems to me like the Orioles did get the type of player that fits your profile, and I don't think there are too many other guys they could have gotten that fit your description.

Well first of all, there are countless of players they could have traded for.  I have named a lot of players from other teams who play IF positions and are now blocked.  I have also said you could take on a poorish 1-2 year deal that a team wants to dump and take back a ML ready player in a position of need.  
 

A lot of teams couldn’t/wouldn’t spend this offseason and a lot of teams wanted to get rid of payroll.   The Orioles are in a financial position to exploit that.

I wanted to see them add a back of the pen arm, a starter or 2 (Harvey may qualify) and I did call on them to add Franco earlier and I predicted they would sign Galvis from the get go.

 But they could have potentially done better at those positions as well.  
 

I still would like to have that extra bat, ala Nunez.    
 

Give this team another innings eater/decent starter, another bat (or at least better in some spots than we Have) and a good Bp arm and I think they could be a lot better.  
 

On top of that, if they are able to acquire pieces who could be here beyond this year and be a help long term, that’s even better.

Like i said, I am glad they signed Franco.  They did partially address this when they did that.

[eddie83]

1 minute ago, LTO's said:

Mid-level FAs are constantly being low-balled and accepting short term low investment type deals. That is in part why I find it so funny that an actual exec would criticize the Orioles for not participating in that market with a young, inexperienced core. What's the benefit? Would Joc Pederson improve attendance and TV ratings? Highly doubt that. Teams are also unwilling to part with impact prospects for short term rentals. So even if the O's signed a good FA and he performed well enough to trade him would that value be that much more than what they got for someone like Milone? Seems doubtful. 

I recall a couple of years ago on MLBN Dan O’Dowd was complaining teams were too reluctant to deal prospects at the deadline. I know you are using Pederson as an example but here the OF is in good shape. You have to find a fit that meets your needs. 
 

If the good teams aren’t wiling to deal players at the deadline then like you say why do it? 

[HowAboutThat]

4 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

No, he’s right..it’s embarrassing to the sport.  It’s embarrassing to any sport.  Tanking isn’t a bad thing..in fact, I would encourage it especially in the NFL and NBA.

However, tanking doesn’t and shouldn’t take as long as these teams draw it out.  Fans have been fooled into thinking it needs to take this long but it’s just a way for owners to line their pockets a little longer.  

How does constant losing help the owner line their pockets more? There is an inverse relationship to income and winning record. Sucking makes no money for the owners, aside from the inflationary increase in overall value of the team. And waiting COSTS money, because your stars age out of their value.

I want a significant increase in wins this year or I’ll be annoyed. I want contention next year or I’ll be REALLY annoyed. But I understand the task at hand and the process involved.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Philip said:

How does constant losing help the owner line their pockets more? There is an inverse relationship to income and winning record. Sucking makes no money for the owners, aside from the inflationary increase in overall value of the team. And waiting COSTS money, because your stars age out of their value.

I want a significant increase in wins this year or I’ll be annoyed. I want contention next year or I’ll be REALLY annoyed. But I understand the task at hand and the process involved.

Payroll is a huge operating expense.  Drop that by 100M and you save a lot.

Sure, you may not sell as many tickets but you will still sell your 1.3M tickets and make a very nice profit.  The MASN money is nice as well, no matter what they want to tell you.

[LookinUp]

10 minutes ago, Philip said:

I want a significant increase in wins this year or I’ll be annoyed. I want contention next year or I’ll be REALLY annoyed. But I understand the task at hand and the process involved.

I want standout performances across the minor leagues at all levels. If that happens, the ML record will be immaterial to me. If not, the ML record will need to mask that failure.

[Hank Scorpio]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

Baltimorons have a chip on their shoulder the size of Wyoming.  Caught between DC, Philly and NYC on 95, the inferiority complex they have is insufferable.

Yeah I don't get all of that either.

All of those cities suck!

 

[eddie83]

This is a day and age where teams have never valued prospects more, even the contending ones. Many players like Acuna or here Adam Jones sign deals which push their eventual FA into when they aren’t as productive. Combine that with a sport that has a much more dramatic aging curve than years ago and this is what you get. 
 

-teams who aren’t willing to deal prospects away like years ago  

-a lesser FA pool due to players aging faster and getting to FA at a point they aren’t as productive  

So your basic options are to skim the FA market which most years is thin -for players the good teams don’t want

 

-Make lateral deals say like a Santander for a place of need

 

You can if you want to be aggressive in FA but you have to live with the consequences of a long term deals. You can in theory deal your own prospects for established talent but you are more than likely in a spot where that makes no sense. 

[SteveA]

29 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well first of all, there are countless of players they could have traded for.  I have named a lot of players from other teams who play IF positions and are now blocked.  I have also said you could take on a poorish 1-2 year deal that a team wants to dump and take back a ML ready player in a position of need.  
 

A lot of teams couldn’t/wouldn’t spend this offseason and a lot of teams wanted to get rid of payroll.   The Orioles are in a financial position to exploit that.

I wanted to see them add a back of the pen arm, a starter or 2 (Harvey may qualify) and I did call on them to add Franco earlier and I predicted they would sign Galvis from the get go.

 But they could have potentially done better at those positions as well.  
 

I still would like to have that extra bat, ala Nunez.    
 

Give this team another innings eater/decent starter, another bat (or at least better in some spots than we Have) and a good Bp arm and I think they could be a lot better.  
 

On top of that, if they are able to acquire pieces who could be here beyond this year and be a help long term, that’s even better.

Like i said, I am glad they signed Franco.  They did partially address this when they did that.

I think there are fewer players like that than you think.

We signed Galvis and Franco (and Sanchez until we reversed course on him).   We traded for Plutko who is in exactly the position you describe.   So we made a bunch of moves that sound like exactly what you are loudly and frequently bewailing we did not do.

I just don't think there are many players we could have that have any value at all worth giving up future value for.   I'd rather play Urias at 2B all year than give up even a probably-never-will-be like Ryan McKenna for someone who is probably at best a tiny improvement over Urias and is equally unlikely to have future value.   I just don't think you are being realistic in your expectations.   Any improvement to this year's team that doesn't come at the cost of the future would be very  minimal at best.   Yet you are making it seem like our offseason is a failure because we only did a little bit of improvement to this year's team (Galvis/Franco).

 

[Moose Milligan]

14 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Yeah I don't get all of that either.

All of those cities suck!

 

Whoa, Hank Scorpio sighting!

[Frobby]

34 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Payroll is a huge operating expense.  Drop that by 100M and you save a lot.

Sure, you may not sell as many tickets but you will still sell your 1.3M tickets and make a very nice profit.  The MASN money is nice as well, no matter what they want to tell you.

We know with a pretty good degree of accuracy what they get from MASN, or at least what they were getting in 2012-16.    We used to have to guess, but the arbitration decisions and court proceedings pretty much laid it all out there.