Good Golly this team is painful to watch right now...

[Pickles]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

Cool

I'll take that as a concession.  I know that's not easy for you.

[scOtt]

Sorry to hijack. I can't resist...

1958

[Sports Guy]

33 minutes ago, Pickles said:

I'll take that as a concession.  I know that's not easy for you.

If that makes you feel better about being completely wrong about what I’m saying, be my guest.  

[Pickles]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

If that makes you feel better about being completely wrong about what I’m saying, be my guest.  

Well, then what are you saying, man?

Cause it sounds to me like you're saying they should have "spent money" and/or traded "depth" (presumably prospects and/or young MLers cause we don't have anything else) for immediate middling upgrades on a bad team in a rebuilding year.

Even using your example of Adames.  Even if the Rays would just gift us Adames, we'd still stink.  It wouldn't change the needle in any appreciable way- in terms of actually competing.

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Pickles said:

Well, then what are you saying, man?

Cause it sounds to me like you're saying they should have "spent money" and/or traded "depth" (presumably prospects and/or young MLers cause we don't have anything else) for immediate middling upgrades on a bad team in a rebuilding year.

Even using your example of Adames.  Even if the Rays would just gift us Adames, we'd still stink.  It wouldn't change the needle in any appreciable way- in terms of actually competing.

I have explained this so many times on here. 
 

Im not going to go into every little detail...just to say that the goal would be a 500ish/much more watchable team while still having an eye on the long term.

Not every prospect is for playing in the majors.  They are assets to use in a number of ways.  Trading some of them for proven talent that still fits into your situation is what you should be doing.  Instead, you jerk them around and they become nothing And then they have no value.   They end up doing nothing for the organization but if you trade them at that right time, they may bring you back someone important.  
 

The Orioles weren’t contenders when they got JJ Hardy but look at how important he was for the team Long term.

Its a lie and complete bs that you need 5 years to rebuild.  Anyone buying that is incredibly foolish.  Teams just say that because they want to save money and now the Orioles can cry about the shut down last year and that’s more bs that the fans are buying.  
 

 

[Three Run Homer]

We would be a better team right now if we still had Hanser Alberto.  He would be better at either 2B or 3B than what we have now.  So that's a specific example of a cost-conscious decision that made the team less competitive this season.

Do I care that the O's let Hanser Alberto go?  Not really.  Hanser Alberto, or five more guys like Hanser Alberto wouldn't make the O's a contending team this season.  It takes high end talent to contend, and right now the O's have only one high-end player, John Means, and a couple of guys at the next tier who are not stars but who could be good supporting players on a contending team, Trey Mancini and Cedric Mullins.  Hanser Alberto is at the next tier down from Mancini and Mullins, a competent player who is better than replacement level but who would be a below average player on a contending team.    

The O's could have spent a little more money this offseason and gotten guys like Hanser Alberto at C, 2B, 3B and the starting rotation.  They did get a guy like Hanser Alberto to play SS for them this season, Freddie Galvis.   If they had more guys like Galvis and Alberto they would have a good chance to win 70 games instead of 60.   This would leave the team with fewer financial resources and a weaker draft position.  Is that what you want?  

Free agents at the John Means level, or even at the Trey Mancini level, don't sign with bad teams unless they get absurdly overpaid (like the Padres did with Hosmer a few years back).   There is no other way for the O's to get high end talent right now besides developing it themselves.  

So I don't think spending a little more money on a few veteran free agents is the right way to go.  Concentrate on the draft and on international signings, be patient, focus on player development.  Accept that we will suck for a few more years and that the organization is following the only realistic path that can make them a championship contender later on.  

[Pickles]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I have explained this so many times on here. 
 

Im not going to go into every little detail...just to say that the goal would be a 500ish/much more watchable team while still having an eye on the long term.

Not every prospect is for playing in the majors.  They are assets to use in a number of ways.  Trading some of them for proven talent that still fits into your situation is what you should be doing.  Instead, you jerk them around and they become nothing And then they have no value.   They end up doing nothing for the organization but if you trade them at that right time, they may bring you back someone important.  
 

The Orioles weren’t contenders when they got JJ Hardy but look at how important he was for the team Long term.

Its a lie and complete bs that you need 5 years to rebuild.  Anyone buying that is incredibly foolish.  Teams just say that because they want to save money and now the Orioles can cry about the shut down last year and that’s more bs that the fans are buying.  
 

 

I mean you can have goals in this life.  That's great.  But have goals in one hand, and sh-- in the other, and tell me which fills up first.

The idea that they should be .500 this year, while simultaneously building for the future, seems rooted in delusion. 

Trading "depth" now, when you don't know who is going to pan out, is reckless.

If you want to argue they should spend 10 more mil this year to bring in upgrades to 2b and 3b, like.... ok.  Sure.  Again, maybe we'd win 66 games and get your nips all hard, but I don't see that as some kind of strong condemnation because I don't care if they win 66 games this year or 62.

You know all these things.

Your last paragraph shows us the motive here: Anger.  It also reveals your total detachment from reality and rational analysis.  To suggest that teams haven't lost outrageous amounts of money the last two years is....... detached from reality.  There's no other word for it.

You're angry that the team is playing poorly.  I get that.  You don't like the ownership.  I more than get that.  And yeah, they're not operating optimally.  But don't tell me it's logical.  Because it's anything but that.

 

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Three Run Homer said:

We would be a better team right now if we still had Hanser Alberto.  He would be better at either 2B or 3B than what we have now.  So that's a specific example of a cost-conscious decision that made the team less competitive this season.

Do I care that the O's let Hanser Alberto go?  Not really.  Hanser Alberto, or five more guys like Hanser Alberto wouldn't make the O's a contending team this season.  It takes high end talent to contend, and right now the O's have only one high-end player, John Means, and a couple of guys at the next tier who are not stars but who could be good supporting players on a contending team, Trey Mancini and Cedric Mullins.  Hanser Alberto is at the next tier down from Mancini and Mullins, a competent player who is better than replacement level but who would be a below average player on a contending team.    

The O's could have spent a little more money this offseason and gotten guys like Hanser Alberto at C, 2B, 3B and the starting rotation.  They did get a guy like Hanser Alberto to play SS for them this season, Freddie Galvis.   If they had more guys like Galvis and Alberto they would have a good chance to win 70 games instead of 60.   This would leave the team with fewer financial resources and a weaker draft position.  Is that what you want?  

Free agents at the John Means level, or even at the Trey Mancini level, don't sign with bad teams unless they get absurdly overpaid (like the Padres did with Hosmer a few years back).   There is no other way for the O's to get high end talent right now besides developing it themselves.  

So I don't think spending a little more money on a few veteran free agents is the right way to go.  Concentrate on the draft and on international signings, be patient, focus on player development.  Accept that we will suck for a few more years and that the organization is following the only realistic path that can make them a championship contender later on.  

Real quick, but Hanser Alberto has a 63 OPS+, and has been worth - 0.4 BWAR.

How much better would we be?

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, Pickles said:

I mean you can have goals in this life.  That's great.  But have goals in one hand, and sh-- in the other, and tell me which fills up first.

The idea that they should be .500 this year, while simultaneously building for the future, seems rooted in delusion. 

Trading "depth" now, when you don't know who is going to pan out, is reckless.

If you want to argue they should spend 10 more mil this year to bring in upgrades to 2b and 3b, like.... ok.  Sure.  Again, maybe we'd win 66 games and get your nips all hard, but I don't see that as some kind of strong condemnation because I don't care if they win 66 games this year or 62.

You know all these things.

Your last paragraph shows us the motive here: Anger.  It also reveals your total detachment from reality and rational analysis.  To suggest that teams haven't lost outrageous amounts of money the last two years is....... detached from reality.  There's no other word for it.

You're angry that the team is playing poorly.  I get that.  You don't like the ownership.  I more than get that.  And yeah, they're not operating optimally.  But don't tell me it's logical.  Because it's anything but that.

 

I’m not angry that the team is playing awful.  I don’t give a damn.  I had no expectations for this team because they didn’t give us a reason to expect anything.

 I think they end up winning 65-70 games.  I don’t think it would be that hard for them to be 10 or so games better than that with smart moves that help now but don’t damage you long term.

For some odd reason, you don’t feel thats possible.  That is what I call irrational but hey, to each their own.  
 

It’s absolutely logical..your inability to not see or understand that doesn’t mean it’s not logical..it just means you can’t see the forest through the trees.  
 

Oh and btw, teams have lost money but they also saved a sh** ton as well.  Some teams still spent money.  Some teams didn’t hide behind that bs.  

[Pickles]

 

1) We have a difference here.  I don't think they win 65-70 games.  I think they win 60-65.  That was my preseason prediction and I've seen nothing to change it.  (Other than the option of running Means into the ground and winning 3ish more games, which of course they won't take.)  So this is a ~5 game difference in our perspectives of the baseline for this team's talent.  That's not insignificant.  

And yet, it kind of is.  Improving the team by "ten games" doesn't make a lick of difference in their chances of making the playoffs.  By either of our estimations.

2) Again, how do they just magically win 10 more games without damaging their long term options?  How many wins is Adames worth?  2?  3?  How do you just magically upgrade their weaknesses- C, 2b, 3b, SP the most glaring imo- 10 WAR without expending resources?

So no I don't think it is impossible for them to raise their baseline like 10 games.  But I think it will cost you long term opportunity.  We don't really have relief prospects quite like what was just paid for Adames.  But best comp imo, and I welcome your input, is a Dillon Tate and Tanner Scott.  That might be a little more than was paid, but it's in the ballpark.  

Now do that 3-4 times to get the 74th win that we just so desperately need, and tell me how it doesn't come at the cost of either the current or future major league team.

3) This team won 47!!! games three years ago.  It was old.  It was expensive.  All of the major league talent which had positive value had already been traded.  All of the major league talent which remained had negative value.

The farm system was bad.  It wasn't a dumpster fire, but they had no international presence, and few systemic approaches to talent evaluation or development.

I think this is our fundamental difference.  Turning around a losing ML team is difficult enough.  It takes time.  Turning around a historically bad ML franchise takes more time.

And you can't show me anything concrete other than the idea that they don't need to be this bad.  As if that was any kind of prescription for improvement.  

"Doc, I'm sick."

"Well, you don't need to be."

Doesn't cure much, does it?

[Sports Guy]

7 hours ago, Pickles said:

 

1) We have a difference here.  I don't think they win 65-70 games.  I think they win 60-65.  That was my preseason prediction and I've seen nothing to change it.  (Other than the option of running Means into the ground and winning 3ish more games, which of course they won't take.)  So this is a ~5 game difference in our perspectives of the baseline for this team's talent.  That's not insignificant.  

And yet, it kind of is.  Improving the team by "ten games" doesn't make a lick of difference in their chances of making the playoffs.  By either of our estimations.

2) Again, how do they just magically win 10 more games without damaging their long term options?  How many wins is Adames worth?  2?  3?  How do you just magically upgrade their weaknesses- C, 2b, 3b, SP the most glaring imo- 10 WAR without expending resources?

So no I don't think it is impossible for them to raise their baseline like 10 games.  But I think it will cost you long term opportunity.  We don't really have relief prospects quite like what was just paid for Adames.  But best comp imo, and I welcome your input, is a Dillon Tate and Tanner Scott.  That might be a little more than was paid, but it's in the ballpark.  

Now do that 3-4 times to get the 74th win that we just so desperately need, and tell me how it doesn't come at the cost of either the current or future major league team.

3) This team won 47!!! games three years ago.  It was old.  It was expensive.  All of the major league talent which had positive value had already been traded.  All of the major league talent which remained had negative value.

The farm system was bad.  It wasn't a dumpster fire, but they had no international presence, and few systemic approaches to talent evaluation or development.

I think this is our fundamental difference.  Turning around a losing ML team is difficult enough.  It takes time.  Turning around a historically bad ML franchise takes more time.

And you can't show me anything concrete other than the idea that they don't need to be this bad.  As if that was any kind of prescription for improvement.  

"Doc, I'm sick."

"Well, you don't need to be."

Doesn't cure much, does it?

And you can’t show me anything that it has to take this long.  Teams have chosen to have it take this long.  Doesn’t mean it has to.  You are just gullible to believe that.  
 

So, Adames is an example of someone who was available.  In an offseason where some teams were crying woe is me, opportunities existed to acquire players for cheap because teams didn’t want the contract.  You could have likely also “bought prospects”, ala the Giants/angels deal a few years ago.

I had wanted them to improve the pen and plenty of arms signed cheaper deals that could be helping us a lot right now. Steven Matz was dealt for next to nothing but the Mets had depth and wanted to save the money.

There were deals that were made and deals they likely could have made happen. They have chosen not to do that but just because they chose not to do it, doesn’t mean they couldn’t and it doesn’t mean that you sacrifice your long term to get it.  Would have dealt some talent?  Sure but you deal your lower end talent, you guys ranked in your top 25-40 because you are taking on money and money was more important to teams this past offseason than the return was in some cases.

I’m not saying the Os take on some stupid contract but a short term deal for an obvious upgrade, when it costs you little to acquire them?  Absolutely.

They just didn’t want to.  They just don’t care about winning.  They have said that and when they are telling you that Ws and Ls don’t matter, they are also telling you that they aren’t trying to get better in the short term.

It’s not hard to go from a 65-70 win team to a 75-80 win team.  Teams that win sub 70 games will usually have several players that likely shouldn’t be on a Ml roster and I’m not talking about young guys you are giving a chance to.  I am talking about the guys like Ruiz, Lakins, Sulser, etc...replace guys like that with just average MLers and you are already in better shape.
 

Now, it’s hard to go from a sub 500 team to a legit contender and that’s why you build for the long term, don’t get bogged down with dumb contracts and don’t trade away your best assets unless you are getting cost controlled talent in return.  
 

But I’m not asking for the team to do any of that.  This offseason was littered with guys who took 1 and 2 year deals.  Teams that could wait to get rid of money even on short term deals.  They could easily have a better product on the field And it not have cost them much, if any, part of the future., all the while continuing to keep an eye on the long term. 

They just didn’t want to.  They didn’t see the value in putting a better and more watchable product on the field in 2021.

[interloper]

No one ever said it would take 5 years, just for the record 

[ScGO's]

44 minutes ago, interloper said:

No one ever said it would take 5 years, just for the record 

Maybe not, but when Elias took over, I thought in my head that it would probably take till 2023 before we saw competitive baseball in Baltimore again.  I have held steady with that prediction, so I don't get to upset over the parent club results.  I don't watch the games hoping for the win as much as monitoring the performance of our younger players.  I feel the team is being managed this way too: not to win, but to allow the players to develop or build trade stock.  If they win as a result, great; if not, hopefully it leads to Kumar or another draft stud.  I look at the success being created at Delmarva, Aberdeen, and Bowie and I continue to hold steady that by 2023 we will have developed/acquired enough talent to compete.

Although they aren't winning much, a few of our veterans are definitely building trade value.  A good draft plus whatever we get back for Mancini, etc should help prepare the O's even better for competition in 2023.

[ThomasTomasz]

12 hours ago, Pickles said:

They're not going to spend money now. That's perfectly reasonable.  And I'm sure at some point in 2006, when they signed a bunch of generic relievers to improve a 64 win team, you wrote a 3,000 word post- rightfully- nailing them about it. (I'm not saying that actually happened.  But I bet it did.)

What needle does Wily Adames move for this team?  Is he going to make them "good?"  No, they're still a bad team, and thus, will look like crap for weeks on end.

I don't see them jerking young kids around.  In fact, I see a lot of people criticizing them for being slow in their promotion of prospects.

Guys aren't getting better?

Mullins and Means would like a word with you.

Or the David Segui's of the world.  I actually got into it with a Mets fan on a forum years ago that both owners were cheap.  When I looked from 2000-2015-ish, I think there were 10 seasons where both Angelos and the Wilpons had a top 10-15 payroll.  You couldn't argue that they were investing in the team, but that they were making the wrong decisions in HOW they invested that money.  

Even when we were competing, we were ignoring the appropriate infrastructure improvements in the minor leagues and analytics.  We ignored international free agents.  Our development system over that same period could NOT develop starting pitching to safe their lives- the only TORPs we developed were Mussina and Bedard, and that second one is loosely counted for us. 

Now, I can say that those things have changed at least.  Elias cleaned house in the warehouse and the development system.  We've invested heavily in analytics and still are.  We signed two top 50 international free agents last year, including Maikol Hernandez who is getting a lot of attention by those who watch those things.  In a short, three year timeframe, they've already developed John Means, so we will have to see if that trend can continue.  

Great post.  

[Greenpastures23]

12 hours ago, Pickles said:

 

1) We have a difference here.  I don't think they win 65-70 games.  I think they win 60-65.  That was my preseason prediction and I've seen nothing to change it.  (Other than the option of running Means into the ground and winning 3ish more games, which of course they won't take.)  So this is a ~5 game difference in our perspectives of the baseline for this team's talent.  That's not insignificant.  

And yet, it kind of is.  Improving the team by "ten games" doesn't make a lick of difference in their chances of making the playoffs.  By either of our estimations.

2) Again, how do they just magically win 10 more games without damaging their long term options?  How many wins is Adames worth?  2?  3?  How do you just magically upgrade their weaknesses- C, 2b, 3b, SP the most glaring imo- 10 WAR without expending resources?

So no I don't think it is impossible for them to raise their baseline like 10 games.  But I think it will cost you long term opportunity.  We don't really have relief prospects quite like what was just paid for Adames.  But best comp imo, and I welcome your input, is a Dillon Tate and Tanner Scott.  That might be a little more than was paid, but it's in the ballpark.  

Now do that 3-4 times to get the 74th win that we just so desperately need, and tell me how it doesn't come at the cost of either the current or future major league team.

3) This team won 47!!! games three years ago.  It was old.  It was expensive.  All of the major league talent which had positive value had already been traded.  All of the major league talent which remained had negative value.

The farm system was bad.  It wasn't a dumpster fire, but they had no international presence, and few systemic approaches to talent evaluation or development.

I think this is our fundamental difference.  Turning around a losing ML team is difficult enough.  It takes time.  Turning around a historically bad ML franchise takes more time.

And you can't show me anything concrete other than the idea that they don't need to be this bad.  As if that was any kind of prescription for improvement.  

"Doc, I'm sick."

"Well, you don't need to be."

Doesn't cure much, does it?

 

Not sure I'd call the Orioles historically bad.

Historically bad since 1984, sure