I'm starting to think we are 4-5 years away from competing for real

[crowmst3k!]

20 minutes ago, Frobby said:

By this definition, I think it’s two years before we are walking.   But maybe next year we are standing up in the crib instead of just lying there hoping someone picks us up!

2023 is the year I see the Orioles 'in the hunt' for the season. Not necessarily a playoff team, but not a complete joke. Probably around the low-mid 80's in win total. 

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

Just now, crowmst3k! said:

2023 is the year I see the Orioles 'in the hunt' for the season. Not necessarily a playoff team, but not a complete joke. Probably around the low-mid 80's in win total. 

Have to think Elias job security is in jeopardy if the Orioles aren't a low-mid 80's win team in 2023, but with the Orioles who knows. 

[kidrock]

2 hours ago, Pickles said:

The Baltimore Orioles in 2018 were probably in the worst position in modern history in terms of being prepared to compete.

Yes, absolutely terrible.

[kidrock]

1 hour ago, Oriole1940 said:

Contending is somewhat dependent as to what the other teams do.  One year a certain W/L record  would get a team to the playoffs, and another year it would not, if making the  playoffs  is the definition of Contending.  I would think that aiming for .500  would be  the absolute highest  goal to reasonably set for 2022.  Anything above that would be off the chart, good.  But we do not know for a fact if  a  .500 record would put the team in the playoffs.   Now if we define contending as a reasonable chance to make the playoffs 1/2  way through the season, then the bar is not as high.   Anyway,  as has been said,  if the team is improving at a good rate, then that bar is not so high either,  and should be very achievable, again depending on what the definition of a good rate is. I have always looked at a poor team as one that is crawling, a .500 team as one that is walking, and a team above .500  as a team that is running.    Hope the Orioles run into the playoffs by 2023. 

Fair points.  I'm still struggling to see a 90 win team in 2-3 years from now, let along a 95+ win team that can take it all.

[survivedc]

3 minutes ago, kidrock said:

Fair points.  I'm still struggling to see a 90 win team in 2-3 years from now, let along a 95+ win team that can take it all.

The key to me is that the margin between championship team and playoff team is usually pretty thin. While I’d love a team that wins 105 games and is the best team wire to wire, I’m perfectly happy with a team that wins 90 on the road to the WS. The 89-73 Royals lost to the 88-74 Giants in 2014.

[7Mo]

20 minutes ago, kidrock said:

Fair points.  I'm still struggling to see a 90 win team in 2-3 years from now, let along a 95+ win team that can take it all.

I think that's reasonable. And I think having a 90 win team depends on some acquisitions that are not yet visible along with further player development from guys already in the system. Probably need quite a bit of both but at least we're on the right path.

 

[Moose Milligan]

I'm tired of trying to project when this team will be good.  If ever.

They'll get there when they get there.  If they get there.

[7Mo]

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

I'm tired of trying to project when this team will be good.  If ever.

They'll get there when they get there.  If they get there.

I'm gonna guess when you were driving your family on vacation, you weren't real patient with the young kids in the back saying "are we there yet, are we there yet?"

[Yossarian]

This is why major league baseball needs to contract.  Fewer teams will mean stronger teams and more parity.  It will also make games much more interesting.  It may not help viewership in cities that lose teams, but the league itself - at least the quality of play - will be much improved and interesting for the lay fan.  It is a travesty that teams like Baltimore has been putting out on the field for the last several years should be in the same league with teams full of legitimate big league players.  The talent gap between the haves and have nots in the league is way too big to make the league interesting.

[jabba72]

8 minutes ago, Yossarian said:

This is why major league baseball needs to contract.  Fewer teams will mean stronger teams and more parity.  It will also make games much more interesting.  It may not help viewership in cities that lose teams, but the league itself - at least the quality of play - will be much improved and interesting for the lay fan.  It is a travesty that teams like Baltimore has been putting out on the field for the last several years should be in the same league with teams full of legitimate big league players.  The talent gap between the haves and have nots in the league is way too big to make the league interesting.

They tried to contract the Twins and Florida about 20 years ago and the state governors wouldnt allow it. 

[survivedc]

9 minutes ago, Yossarian said:

This is why major league baseball needs to contract.  Fewer teams will mean stronger teams and more parity.  It will also make games much more interesting.  It may not help viewership in cities that lose teams, but the league itself - at least the quality of play - will be much improved and interesting for the lay fan.  It is a travesty that teams like Baltimore has been putting out on the field for the last several years should be in the same league with teams full of legitimate big league players.  The talent gap between the haves and have nots in the league is way too big to make the league interesting.

The same can be said about every sport. Have you watched basketball? At least in baseball an argument could be made that teams are staying bad artificially, with the Orioles keeping 2 of their top 5 talents (I’d argue) in the minors.

The last thing baseball needs, an already localized sport, is to consolidate their area.

[jabba72]

It will come down to starting pitching IMO, I think the lineup should be OK if they can figure out SS. They'll need 3 guys to step up along with Means. Have no guess who they could be other than Grayson and DL Hall. 

[fitzi22]

It’s really all about how you want to construct your team. Elias to this point has wanted to add talent via draft, trade for cheap/controllable pieces, and the fledgling international market.  Free agency is mostly ignored unless we can get a deal on a possibly tradeable player. It is difficult to build a competitive team just with the draft and trades. You need to have a successful international system to acquire nearly half of your players.  Good news is the O’s have made strides in this area. Bad news is it will take another 4-5 years for these players to be major contributors, so yes I agree with the opening post and believe we are this far away.  Which logically brings you to the place of trading away every player that you believe will not be a major contributor by then to help aquire additional talent.  

[7Mo]

5 minutes ago, fitzi22 said:

It’s really all about how you want to construct your team. Elias to this point has wanted to add talent via draft, trade for cheap/controllable pieces, and the fledgling international market.  Free agency is mostly ignored unless we can get a deal on a possibly tradeable player. It is difficult to build a competitive team just with the draft and trades. You need to have a successful international system to acquire nearly half of your players.  Good news is the O’s have made strides in this area. Bad news is it will take another 4-5 years for these players to be major contributors, so yes I agree with the opening post and believe we are this far away.  Which logically brings you to the place of trading away every player that you believe will not be a major contributor by then to help aquire additional talent.  

Good post. I think it's necessary to take small steps before taking bigger ones, meaning:

I'm a believer that you can't walk into Latin America and flash cash and sign guys. I think it takes years to develop your foundation. We're doing better each year and I believe that continues.

I believe we've drafted well but it'll be 24-48 months before anyone knows for sure.

Trades have been limited because Elias did not have a lot of value to deal. Now he does. Mancini, Scott, Fry, Sulser, Means, Mullins, Santander and hopefully Galvis all have some value. Maybe they go this week, maybe this winter, maybe next July but several of those guys should bring back much better returns than were possible from Givens, Cobb, Bundy or Cashner. 

The next step, after these July trades, should be to sign 3-4 guys over the winter in a higher price range that have better value than a King Felix or Matt Harvey. We have had some success signing guys at or around a million but I'd like to see what Elias can do with some 3-4 million dollar signings, either for rotation stability and veteran presence or as a trade chip, or both. In theory, that lets us shop in a higher prospect ranking aisle going forward. 

Hopefully this time next year looks much more positive.

[Pickles]

3 hours ago, crowmst3k! said:

I don't know how to answer this question. 

Well, it's meant to be rhetorical really.

I've made similar analogies in the past, but they're imperfect at best.

Figuring out the timeline for this rebuild isn't simply a matter of comparing it to what happened under Andy MacPhail.