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

[spiritof66]

16 hours ago, Pickles said:

My response to you is similar to my response to SportsGuy:

What specific moves should have been made?

I think this team plays pretty hard, with a few notable exceptions.

Our infield is undoubtedly a weakness- organizationally.  How could they have improved it without trading talent, or spending money?  Neither of which this team is in a position to do.

These guys aren't turning it on and off depending on if Means is pitching or not.  It looks like that because the question is one of ability not effort.

Rest assured, this is a bad team.  But there will be a few weeks at some point later this season when we'll be on here saying, "These guys don't look too bad."

I didn't mean to imply that the team doesn't play hard, and I'm sorry that my post wasn't clear about that. I think what you said is accurate: they play "pretty hard, with a few notable exceptions." You don't seem to disagree that overall the team doesn't play smart or fundamentally sound baseball.

What I would like to see most of all is some improvement, with at least an implicit acknowledgement that despite the lack of talent there is room do better. I don't know why this can't be a team that will make you (or make me, anyway) say , first "These guys are always hustling. Everybody busts it out the batter's box, whether it's an apparent out or single of extra-base hit or home run. Every infielder seems to know where to go on every play, and they're always backing up on hits and on throws. There's not much talent on the team, but they sure are trying." Second, I'd like to see something that tells me that Hyde cares about instilling that kind of hustle, that he has some reaction when guys don't seem to try hard. It seems to be the furthest thing from his mind (except maybe for winning games). Third, and it's a different point but to me they're related, the few veterans on the team should be showing the way by playing smart baseball in the field, at the plate and on the bases, and I would like to see signs that the younger guys are learning from their example. So, yeah they play "pretty hard," but I'd like to see some sign that somebody in the organization thinks it's it's important to play really hard, and to play smart, and that the young guys are improving in that regard. (I should add that I'm at a disadvantage in assessing what Hyde, and others say about this stuff since I watch the games on MASN via mlb.tv, and I don't get the pre-game or post-game shows other than in rare instances when somebody at MASN screws up and keeps the feed going after the game.)

My point about Means is that when he starts the game, this team looks like major leaguers. With fewer guys opponents on base and Means' faster pace, they seem to be sharper and more alert, don't throw the ball around as much, and with him working fast they seem more alert and competent in the field. Overall, they look like they belong on the same field as even the better teams they're playing. That's not what I see otherwise, with occasional exceptions. Maybe just an illusion, or my self-delusion. 

I don't follow (or remember) the off-season personnel options closely enough to give you specific options infield options the Orioles should have or could have pursued. Instead I'll mention three generalizations about how they might have done things differently.

• First, if I had been looking for veterans to fill the big holes in the lineup, I would have identified and pursued guys who are widely respected for having not only some talent but also a reputation for teaching younger guys, by example and even by explicit instruction, how to play the game the right way: taking pitches, receiving throws, tagging baserunners, making decisions, executing rundown plays. A JJ Hardy type. All I know is what I see, but Franco and Sanchez don't seem to fit that mold. Galvis might. (The same is true with starting pitchers. I don't hear about Matt Harvey helping the starters, as I used to hear was the case with Cobb and Miley.
• Second, I would have been looking for guys whose presence in the clubhouse would be constructive. I was a little surprised recently to hear Ben McDonald praise the Orioles' promotion of Wilkerson because, he said, Stevie is an outgoing guy who would would add some life to a quiet clubhouse. I'm sure it's hard to create a great clubhouse atmosphere when the team is as bad as this one, but it sounds like a shortcoming that might have been helped by paying a little more for the needed veterans. 
• Third, you seem to agree that some more talent would have been available -- let's just say that it might have been available -- if the Orioles had been willing to spend more. They absolutely should have spent more, maybe on Villar or Iglesias or Alberto, or else else by signing mid-level free agents or trading for guys with higher salaries.There is no reason why the Orioles' payroll should be, after you remove Davis and Cobb (the first entirely and the second at least partly the product of ownership's ignorance, selfishness and poor judgment), under $30 million. If current ownership thinks that's all it can afford to spend on the 2021 payroll it should put the team in the hands of someone who's not so financially constrained. 

 

[now]

14 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

I didn't mean to imply that the team doesn't play hard, and I'm sorry that my post wasn't clear about that. I think what you said is accurate: they play "pretty hard, with a few notable exceptions." You don't seem to disagree that overall the team doesn't play smart or fundamentally sound baseball.

What I would like to see most of all is some improvement, with at least an implicit acknowledgement that despite the lack of talent there is room do better. I don't know why this can't be a team that will make you (or make me, anyway) say , first "These guys are always hustling. Everybody busts it out the batter's box, whether it's an apparent out or single of extra-base hit or home run. Every infielder seems to know where to go on every play, and they're always backing up on hits and on throws. There's not much talent on the team, but they sure are trying." Second, I'd like to see something that tells me that Hyde cares about instilling that kind of hustle, that he has some reaction when guys don't seem to try hard. It seems to be the furthest thing from his mind (except maybe for winning games). Third, and it's a different point but to me they're related, the few veterans on the team should be showing the way by playing smart baseball in the field, at the plate and on the bases, and I would like to see signs that the younger guys are learning from their example. So, yeah they play "pretty hard," but I'd like to see some sign that somebody in the organization thinks it's it's important to play really hard, and to play smart, and that the young guys are improving in that regard. (I should add that I'm at a disadvantage in assessing what Hyde, and others say about this stuff since I watch the games on MASN via mlb.tv, and I don't get the pre-game or post-game shows other than in rare instances when somebody at MASN screws up and keeps the feed going after the game.)

My point about Means is that when he starts the game, this team looks like major leaguers. With fewer guys opponents on base and Means' faster pace, they seem to be sharper and more alert, don't throw the ball around as much, and with him working fast they seem more alert and competent in the field. Overall, they look like they belong on the same field as even the better teams they're playing. That's not what I see otherwise, with occasional exceptions. Maybe just an illusion, or my self-delusion. 

I don't follow (or remember) the off-season personnel options closely enough to give you specific options infield options the Orioles should have or could have pursued. Instead I'll mention three generalizations about how they might have done things differently.

• First, if I had been looking for veterans to fill the big holes in the lineup, I would have identified and pursued guys who are widely respected for having not only some talent but also a reputation for teaching younger guys, by example and even by explicit instruction, how to play the game the right way: taking pitches, receiving throws, tagging baserunners, making decisions, executing rundown plays. A JJ Hardy type. All I know is what I see, but Franco and Sanchez don't seem to fit that mold. Galvis might. (The same is true with starting pitchers. I don't hear about Matt Harvey helping the starters, as I used to hear was the case with Cobb and Miley.
• Second, I would have been looking for guys whose presence in the clubhouse would be constructive. I was a little surprised recently to hear Ben McDonald praise the Orioles' promotion of Wilkerson because, he said, Stevie is an outgoing guy who would would add some life to a quiet clubhouse. I'm sure it's hard to create a great clubhouse atmosphere when the team is as bad as this one, but it sounds like a shortcoming that might have been helped by paying a little more for the needed veterans. 
• Third, you seem to agree that some more talent would have been available -- let's just say that it might have been available -- if the Orioles had been willing to spend more. They absolutely should have spent more, maybe on Villar or Iglesias or Alberto, or else else by signing mid-level free agents or trading for guys with higher salaries.There is no reason why the Orioles' payroll should be, after you remove Davis and Cobb (the first entirely and the second at least partly the product of ownership's ignorance, selfishness and poor judgment), under $30 million. If current ownership thinks that's all it can afford to spend on the 2021 payroll it should put the team in the hands of someone who's not so financially constrained. 

 

My short take on the above is, it sounds like you are pining for the regime of Showalter and Duquette.

[Pickles]

7 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

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.

I guess I just think your criticism is overblown.  

You're not wrong.  They could have done a lot of things differently.  They could have spent some more money.  They could have take some chances.

Again, it is a matter of degrees.  You say they don't care about putting a better product on the field in 2021.  I say they're prioritizing putting a better future product on the field at the expense of the 2021 team.  Because that's what a rebuild is.

And again, we can get specific.  You want Adames?  You willing to trade Tanner Scott and Dillon Tate for him? Because these are the kind of real decision which need be made; and not just hypothetical platitudes about "turning over every rock."

[Pickles]

2 hours ago, Greenpastures23 said:

 

Not sure I'd call the Orioles historically bad.

Historically bad since 1984, sure

Their position in 2017 sure as hell was historically bad.

Do ya'll know how difficult it is to win 47 games in a year in which you maxed out payroll with the intent of competing for the playoffs?

[Camden_yardbird]

19 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

And the fan base continues to buy into the idea that you need 5 years to rebuild.  It’s all bs but yet people do it anyway.

They do need five years to rebuild.

Rebuild profits from just okay to monopoly money.

I am not in Baltimore.  What is the Baltimore media saying about this.  This stretch is as bad as I can remember. 

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, Pickles said:

I guess I just think your criticism is overblown.  

You're not wrong.  They could have done a lot of things differently.  They could have spent some more money.  They could have take some chances.

Again, it is a matter of degrees.  You say they don't care about putting a better product on the field in 2021.  I say they're prioritizing putting a better future product on the field at the expense of the 2021 team.  Because that's what a rebuild is.

And again, we can get specific.  You want Adames?  You willing to trade Tanner Scott and Dillon Tate for him? Because these are the kind of real decision which need be made; and not just hypothetical platitudes about "turning over every rock."

I said they don’t care about putting a better product on the field because they have said it!!! There is no interpretation of that.  They have said, we don’t care about winning.  There is no room for interpretation there.

 

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

I said they don’t care about putting a better product on the field because they have said it!!! There is no interpretation of that.  They have said, we don’t care about winning.  There is no room for interpretation there.

 

You're not really saying anything we all don't know, and have know for quite a while:

They are not prioritizing wins in 2021 at the cost of possible future wins.

That's what a rebuild is.  We all know that.

Let's get into the nuts and bolts: Do you trade Scott and Tate for Adames?

[Sports Guy]

46 minutes ago, Pickles said:

You're not really saying anything we all don't know, and have know for quite a while:

They are not prioritizing wins in 2021 at the cost of possible future wins.

That's what a rebuild is.  We all know that.

Let's get into the nuts and bolts: Do you trade Scott and Tate for Adames?

No..but I don’t know you had to do that in the offseason, when I said to explore it...and we don’t know that it would have taken those guys right now.  They may have liked, for example, Fry and Valdez and I do make that move.  I haven’t looked at the other players they got..I do know at least one was older.  I haven’t comped them.  I’m merely pointing out that Adames was dealt (as I said he would) and they didn’t get a lot for him.

And AGaIN, he is an example..one of several.  There are countless players around the game that likely could have been available or had this past offseason.  
 

What I didn’t want at SS was some 3+ year option because we didn’t know about guys like Westburg and Henderson.  I wasn’t willing to block them.

And Galvis has been ok but Galvis could have been signed to play second too.

They easily could have gotten better and not hurt themselves long term.  That’s my point and I think that’s pretty obvious. 
 

The team didn’t see the advantage to spend more money this year and be better.  I think they were wrong.  I think it hurts your fan base and who knows what the impact mentally it has on the young kids as they keep losing all the time.  (May be nothing, may be something)

Either way, the team should be better and there is no need to act like you have to be terrible for 4 or 5 years.  That’s just an absurd take and thought process.
 

 

[SteveA]

19 hours 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.  
 

 

We witnesses a team that actually TRIED to be .500 for 14 straight years and couldn't do it.

Which means it's not as easy as you sound.  And because of that experience a lot of us were willing to accept a total teardown style rebuild, even though we knew it would have times like these.

I don't think there was a lot of low hanging fruit out there in terms of people we could acquire who could:

   1) help us be better this year 

   2) not cost us giving up any talent that would help us in the future 

and 

   3) Also be a part of the future. 

In other words, another JJ Harry.

I'm still willing to see this thing through.  Right now the most important people on this team right now are mostly wearing the uniforms of Bowie, Aberdeen, and Delmarva and I like what I see.  

 

 

[Sports Guy]

38 minutes ago, SteveA said:

We witnesses a team that actually TRIED to be .500 for 14 straight years and couldn't do it.

Which means it's not as easy as you sound.  And because of that experience a lot of us were willing to accept a total teardown style rebuild, even though we knew it would have times like these.

I don't think there was a lot of low hanging fruit out there in terms of people we could acquire who could:

   1) help us be better this year 

   2) not cost us giving up any talent that would help us in the future 

and 

   3) Also be a part of the future. 

In other words, another JJ Harry.

I'm still willing to see this thing through.  Right now the most important people on this team right now are mostly wearing the uniforms of Bowie, Aberdeen, and Delmarva and I like what I see.  

 

 

They tried to do it with horrible signings, poor decision makers and no farm system.

If you believe those things are still accurate with things now, we are done anyway.

[Number5]

4 hours ago, Camden_yardbird said:

I am not in Baltimore.  What is the Baltimore media saying about this.  This stretch is as bad as I can remember. 

[Sports Guy]

5 hours ago, Camden_yardbird said:

They do need five years to rebuild.

Rebuild profits from just okay to monopoly money.

I am not in Baltimore.  What is the Baltimore media saying about this.  This stretch is as bad as I can remember. 

The same thing they always say..nothing.

You get the people like Connolly who are telling fans that the team won’t be a realistic contender until 2024...it keeps the expectations down to those who rely on the media to think for them. 

[Pickles]

5 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

No..but I don’t know you had to do that in the offseason, when I said to explore it...and we don’t know that it would have taken those guys right now.  They may have liked, for example, Fry and Valdez and I do make that move.  I haven’t looked at the other players they got..I do know at least one was older.  I haven’t comped them.  I’m merely pointing out that Adames was dealt (as I said he would) and they didn’t get a lot for him.

And AGaIN, he is an example..one of several.  There are countless players around the game that likely could have been available or had this past offseason.  
 

What I didn’t want at SS was some 3+ year option because we didn’t know about guys like Westburg and Henderson.  I wasn’t willing to block them.

And Galvis has been ok but Galvis could have been signed to play second too.

They easily could have gotten better and not hurt themselves long term.  That’s my point and I think that’s pretty obvious. 
 

The team didn’t see the advantage to spend more money this year and be better.  I think they were wrong.  I think it hurts your fan base and who knows what the impact mentally it has on the young kids as they keep losing all the time.  (May be nothing, may be something)

Either way, the team should be better and there is no need to act like you have to be terrible for 4 or 5 years.  That’s just an absurd take and thought process.
 

 

I can't say you're wrong.  But I don't think you make a particularly compelling case.

Your argument rests basically on the premise that there are "easy" ways to improve with paying much of a "cost."

I just don't think that's true.

You fail to acknowledge the risk involved too.  Say we could indeed have traded our #35 prospect for Adames in the offseason, and that would have us about a whole entire win better off than we are now.

What happens if that unheralded prospect becomes the next Means?

Well, you just set your rebuild back.

The team made FA acquisitions at 3b and SS so we didn't have to watch AAAA players.  Maybe they should have done the same at second base.  Maybe they should have been willing to pay a little more, though Galvis has been a pleasant surprise.

But in the end, all you're talking about is the difference between 64 wins and 68 wins.  And I just can't get that worked up about it.

[Pickles]

7 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

I didn't mean to imply that the team doesn't play hard, and I'm sorry that my post wasn't clear about that. I think what you said is accurate: they play "pretty hard, with a few notable exceptions." You don't seem to disagree that overall the team doesn't play smart or fundamentally sound baseball.

What I would like to see most of all is some improvement, with at least an implicit acknowledgement that despite the lack of talent there is room do better. I don't know why this can't be a team that will make you (or make me, anyway) say , first "These guys are always hustling. Everybody busts it out the batter's box, whether it's an apparent out or single of extra-base hit or home run. Every infielder seems to know where to go on every play, and they're always backing up on hits and on throws. There's not much talent on the team, but they sure are trying." Second, I'd like to see something that tells me that Hyde cares about instilling that kind of hustle, that he has some reaction when guys don't seem to try hard. It seems to be the furthest thing from his mind (except maybe for winning games). Third, and it's a different point but to me they're related, the few veterans on the team should be showing the way by playing smart baseball in the field, at the plate and on the bases, and I would like to see signs that the younger guys are learning from their example. So, yeah they play "pretty hard," but I'd like to see some sign that somebody in the organization thinks it's it's important to play really hard, and to play smart, and that the young guys are improving in that regard. (I should add that I'm at a disadvantage in assessing what Hyde, and others say about this stuff since I watch the games on MASN via mlb.tv, and I don't get the pre-game or post-game shows other than in rare instances when somebody at MASN screws up and keeps the feed going after the game.)

My point about Means is that when he starts the game, this team looks like major leaguers. With fewer guys opponents on base and Means' faster pace, they seem to be sharper and more alert, don't throw the ball around as much, and with him working fast they seem more alert and competent in the field. Overall, they look like they belong on the same field as even the better teams they're playing. That's not what I see otherwise, with occasional exceptions. Maybe just an illusion, or my self-delusion. 

I don't follow (or remember) the off-season personnel options closely enough to give you specific options infield options the Orioles should have or could have pursued. Instead I'll mention three generalizations about how they might have done things differently.

• First, if I had been looking for veterans to fill the big holes in the lineup, I would have identified and pursued guys who are widely respected for having not only some talent but also a reputation for teaching younger guys, by example and even by explicit instruction, how to play the game the right way: taking pitches, receiving throws, tagging baserunners, making decisions, executing rundown plays. A JJ Hardy type. All I know is what I see, but Franco and Sanchez don't seem to fit that mold. Galvis might. (The same is true with starting pitchers. I don't hear about Matt Harvey helping the starters, as I used to hear was the case with Cobb and Miley.
• Second, I would have been looking for guys whose presence in the clubhouse would be constructive. I was a little surprised recently to hear Ben McDonald praise the Orioles' promotion of Wilkerson because, he said, Stevie is an outgoing guy who would would add some life to a quiet clubhouse. I'm sure it's hard to create a great clubhouse atmosphere when the team is as bad as this one, but it sounds like a shortcoming that might have been helped by paying a little more for the needed veterans. 
• Third, you seem to agree that some more talent would have been available -- let's just say that it might have been available -- if the Orioles had been willing to spend more. They absolutely should have spent more, maybe on Villar or Iglesias or Alberto, or else else by signing mid-level free agents or trading for guys with higher salaries.There is no reason why the Orioles' payroll should be, after you remove Davis and Cobb (the first entirely and the second at least partly the product of ownership's ignorance, selfishness and poor judgment), under $30 million. If current ownership thinks that's all it can afford to spend on the 2021 payroll it should put the team in the hands of someone who's not so financially constrained. 

 

I hate to keep dodging you, but my response to you mirrors my last to Sports Guy.

Making meaningful upgrades to rosters isn't easy.  And it generally isn't cheap.  Or everybody would do it and there would be no bad teams.

Generally, there are opportunity costs associated with trying to win more games now.  It's exactly why teams rebuild.  This is as old as organized ball.

A specific comment I'll make to you is again, I don't see lazy play and I don't see bad fundamentals.  Not really.  With one exception.  Severino.

But Mountcastle stinking up LF ain't an effort issue.  Or even a fundamentals issue.  He just can't play LF.

The very reason this team looks like "major leaguers" when Means is pitching, and not when he isn't, is because the whole thing is an ability issue.

[Sports Guy]

9 hours ago, Pickles said:

I can't say you're wrong.  But I don't think you make a particularly compelling case.

Your argument rests basically on the premise that there are "easy" ways to improve with paying much of a "cost."

I just don't think that's true.

You fail to acknowledge the risk involved too.  Say we could indeed have traded our #35 prospect for Adames in the offseason, and that would have us about a whole entire win better off than we are now.

What happens if that unheralded prospect becomes the next Means?

Well, you just set your rebuild back.

The team made FA acquisitions at 3b and SS so we didn't have to watch AAAA players.  Maybe they should have done the same at second base.  Maybe they should have been willing to pay a little more, though Galvis has been a pleasant surprise.

But in the end, all you're talking about is the difference between 64 wins and 68 wins.  And I just can't get that worked up about it.

 No, YOU are talking about the difference between 64 and 68 wins.  
 

That’s not what I’m doing.