How long do the O’s need to be bad

[LTO's]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

You never “need” to be bad.  That’s a fallacy.

However, I would say you have 2 years to strip down a team and start to build back up.  No “need” for it to be longer than that.

You are seriously under the impression that despite the state of the org after 2018 the Orioles should be competing right now? That's a fantasy.  

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, LTO's said:

You are seriously under the impression that despite the state of the org after 2018 the Orioles should be competing right now? That's a fantasy.  

That isn't what he said.

 

[Sports Guy]

43 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I also don't buy the But it's the AL East it's different argument.  Frobby has shown us, more than once, that the unbalanced schedule doesn't make that big a difference. 

Might it be a bit harder to win the division?  Sure, but to field a competitive team and make the playoffs?  Not really, not enough to justify an additional year or more of intentional non-competitiveness.

It’s a crutch people like to use but agreed it’s bs.

Pro sports are won because you do things intelligently.  Because you draft and develop well.  
 

Every once in a while you can buy a title but that’s few and far between.  The Os can spend plenty of money to contend with the Yanks and Sox.  The Rays are proof of that.

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

That isn't what he said.

 

That never stops him from making poor and irrational comments.

[UMDTerrapins]

I took the cue from our (lack of) off-season moves that 2021 was not about being competitive. I keep looking at our top prospects list and I like the depth, but I want a few more top 100 types. So having a high 2022 pick is appealing to me. I’m actually pretty happy with how things are going. I think some of my concerns about more top prospects is fueled by not having stats for a year and a half. Nobody has had the chance to emerge visibly. Anyhow, I don’t think of 2021 as tanking....we’re just not at the point where competing is the priority. 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, UMDTerrapins said:

I took the cue from our (lack of) off-season moves that 2021 was not about being competitive. I keep looking at our top prospects list and I like the depth, but I want a few more top 100 types. So having a high 2022 pick is appealing to me. I’m actually pretty happy with how things are going. I think some of my concerns about more top prospects is fueled by not having stats for a year and a half. Nobody has had the chance to emerge visibly. Anyhow, I don’t think of 2021 as tanking....we’re just not at the point where competing is the priority. 

You don't think Gunnar visibly emerged?  I've seen his name all over the place in the national lists.

 

[UMDTerrapins]

15 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You don't think Gunnar visibly emerged?  I've seen his name all over the place in the national lists.

 

I mean that because of the lost MiL season nobody has had the chance to play their way onto our top 10 with breakthrough performance. I like our top 5 (including Henderson), but 5-10 is weaker than I’d like. I think back to San Diego’s prospect list a few years ago and being in awe. I’m not in awe with our top 10, but perhaps that’s because the next tier down didn’t have anyone emerge because of the lost opportunity. Trying to be fair minded. I’m really interested in Hernandez, as well as Vavra/Jones  and others who could play their way up to the top 10. There’s good depth. I just think we’re still a bit short on top prospects if we’re hoping to be a real force. I’d love to add a few mashers and not just focus on versatile athletes. I know they don’t grow on trees. Anyhow, May 4th can’t come soon enough. 

[foxfield]

2 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

This might be true of every division except for the AL East. Nobody spends like the NYY and BOS does year in year out. Nobody develops like the Rays. That’s a huge hill to climb. 
 

However, Elias has been able to pick 1:1, 1:2, and soon to be 1:5. Also, he’s been able to pressure free clean house any chance he can with the roster. In Year 3, can he just manage the roster a little better?  He really needs another top 5 pick?  
 

162 games is a long time to suffer through when you’ve already bought into the tanking. It’s asking the fans too much. I’m willing to sacrifice Scroeler and Wells, to be able to put a complete 26 MLB roster out there each game. We have the depth to do that in 2021(year 3). 

1)  You mean the Yankee lineup that for 200 million is behind the O's in the standings?  Sorry, we went 5 years being better than them and it wasn't because we outspent them.  It isn't unimportant, but it's not untenable.

2) The Orioles are not going to win the WS in 2021.  I really do not expect them to try to lose games and I am pretty comfortable saying they are trying to win everyday.  Some of the best players are clearly pushing probably to their own detriment.  Elias could possibly throw three pitchers away and a catcher and bring up some guys and let em cut teeth.  But these same guys largely didn't get to play last year and their futures are probably worth the half or full season in minor league ball to get them back up to speed.  Of course, bringing them up may or may not hurt development, but it would not change the math for Baltimore.  This team would still struggle and win 70 games +/-.  You see the current path as trying to lose for a draft pick.  That pick really isn't the strategy...it's more a perk of the strategy.  The O's couldbe fine with the 10th pick or the 2nd.  

3)  This point is pretty much proof that you are just venting frustration.  If the Orioles let you pick and manage the 26 man roster with anyone you want...nothing you would do would really change anything above.  The Orioles are going to lose about 90 games.  You are going to draft between 2-10 and the only real difference is you are going to start a bunch of service clocks to play with some shiny new toys.  But at the end of the day, you are asking for cake when the batter is put in the pan and stuck in the oven.  

We are really at the point where if we keep perspective, this should start to improve.  We already have Hays, Santander, Mullins, Mountcastle, Means, Mancini.  We lost an entire year of developing young guys.   I am fine giving them as much of this year as needed to get some playing in.  Consider it needed investment in infrastructure.  Like what we are building in the DR.

And this isn't to blindly support or hold up Elias.  He is nearing the end of his rope for unaccountability at the ML level.  This is literally the last year they can say that the ML team isn't trying to measure success on wins.  But I think a little more patience is in order.  And I think deep down you agree.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, foxfield said:

2) The Orioles are not going to win the WS in 2021.  I really do not expect them to try to lose games and I am pretty comfortable saying they are trying to win everyday.

 

 

I agree that the players and Hyde are trying to win.

I do not think this roster was built to win games.  I think this roster was built to:

1. be inexpensive
2. secure a top pick in the 2022 draft

[foxfield]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I agree that the players and Hyde are trying to win.

I do not think this roster was built to win games.  I think this roster was built to:

1. be inexpensive
2. secure a top pick in the 2022 draft

I think the first point is spot on, and I didn't really mean to leave out the financial piece.  But I agree.  Again, I think the second point is a perk that comes with the point you don't include, which is that the players in the minor leagues are going to form the basis of the team going forward and because of that, success in developing that group is more important than directly financing the parent club.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, foxfield said:

I think the first point is spot on, and I didn't really mean to leave out the financial piece.  But I agree.  Again, I think the second point is a perk that comes with the point you don't include, which is that the players in the minor leagues are going to form the basis of the team going forward and because of that, success in developing that group is more important than directly financing the parent club.

I think the development of a couple of them would be enhanced by them playing in the majors.

[foxfield]

12 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think the development of a couple of them would be enhanced by them playing in the majors.

I couldn't agree more, but those guys largely haven't played in a year.  They deserve the time to get ready.  If that means in May...fine.  If it means Sept...fine.  If it means next March....well hopefully it does not mean that because if it takes that long, it means something else.

I agree that time in the majors will enhance development.  I just don't think that has to mean today against the Marlins.

[sportsfan8703]

The rule five guys aren’t exactly “youngsters”.  Player ages of relievers:

Sulser 31.1

Eric Hanhold 27.5

Lakins 26.8

Tyler Wells 26.7

Evan Phillips 26.6

Mac Scroeler 26.0

Zach Pop 24.6

Are Scroeler and Wells really “worth it”?  I don’t think so.  I’d prefer to have Pop in the system and be able to rotate guys in with options to be able to compete and get a look at more players.  

 

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

The rule five guys aren’t exactly “youngsters”.  Player ages of relievers:

Sulser 31.1

Eric Hanhold 27.5

Lakins 26.8

Tyler Wells 26.7

Evan Phillips 26.6

Mac Scroeler 26.0

Zach Pop 24.6

Are Scroeler and Wells really “worth it”?  I don’t think so.  I’d prefer to have Pop in the system and be able to rotate guys in with options to be able to compete and get a look at more players.  

 

Pop has nothing to do with those guys.

Pop is gone because the Os decided to protect older, less talent players instead of him.  Just a dumb decision but you could have him and those 2 rule 5 guys if you wanted.

[spiritof66]

Interesting (to me anyway) on the Hey Bill section (which is public) of Bill James' website:

Hey Bill, I always meant to ask you this question. If you were the general manager of a really bad team, say the 1962 Mets: how many years do you think it would take you to build a pennant contender? Thanks

Asked by: manhattanhi

---

Answered: 4/21/2021

 I don't really have the skill set to be a General Manager, but I would say this:  that if it takes longer than 7 years then there is something missing in the process, and if you can do it in less than 4 years then you've had some very good luck as well as a good process.