Olney on O’s losing

[Frobby]

39 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

This probably isn't going to be a popular take right now but I will say that how the team has done this year shows that they didn't need to show up with an intentionally noncompetitive roster in 2021.

Yeah, I guess they could have gone out and added $40 mm to the payroll, won 70 games instead of 52, and not gotten the chance to draft Holliday.  But I’m happy with the way it played out.  

[deward]

42 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

This probably isn't going to be a popular take right now but I will say that how the team has done this year shows that they didn't need to show up with an intentionally noncompetitive roster in 2021.

I don't think anyone had an issue with the 2018 sell off or the 2019 tank.

None of the post-AR first round picks have played a role yet (meaning, the high first-round picks). Unless I'm forgetting someone, the only post-2019 pick playing a big role is Westburg, who could have been taken with a later first-round pick if they wanted him. Given that 2018 wasn't an intentional tank year, and Adley and Gunnar came from the 2019 draft, you could argue that none of the intentional tanking was necessary to get to this 2023 team (although the next wave coming behind them obviously wouldn't look quite the same).

[Osornot]

46 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well, you don’t need to tank for 4-5 years to be successful.

I agree that it may have been a bit long but to have a longer window of success is going to take longer.. more painful but longer IMO

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Osornot said:

I agree that it may have been a bit long but to have a longer window of success is going to take longer.. more painful but longer IMO

No it’s not. You don’t need to tank longer to win longer.

[Moose Milligan]

12 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Yeah, I guess they could have gone out and added $40 mm to the payroll, won 70 games instead of 52, and not gotten the chance to draft Holliday.  But I’m happy with the way it played out.  

That sums it up well.

[dystopia]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

No it’s not. You don’t need to tank longer to win longer.

Longer tanking = more future talent, so while it’s not *necessary* to tank 4-5 years to win in the future, you’re a bit off the mark here. 

[Sports Guy]

Just now, dystopia said:

Longer tanking = more future talent, so while it’s not *necessary* to tank 4-5 years to win in the future, you’re a bit off the mark here. 

Wrong…longer tanking equals the chance to get one higher pick and more draft pool money, most of which goes to that one higher pick.

It doesn’t guarantee anything and it’s been proven over and over again that you can get very good players outside the top 10. It’s harder to get those players outside the top 10 but they exist, as the Os themselves have proven.

[Sports Guy]

20 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Yeah, I guess they could have gone out and added $40 mm to the payroll, won 70 games instead of 52, and not gotten the chance to draft Holliday.  But I’m happy with the way it played out.  

This assumes a lot of things..main one being that if you add to the team that you are only adding to a 52 win team, which I think is bs.

And if you do spend that money and do better, maybe you have those guys in place and we celebrate a playoff appearance in 2022 as well.

[Too Tall]

Personnally, I don't give a crap about Buster and three years ago. EVERYONE didn't think we would be HERE now including all us experts on here. WE ARE HERE! Now, we have more business to take care of while we continue to surprise the folks that enjoyed putting us down. 

[dystopia]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Wrong…longer tanking equals the chance to get one higher pick and more draft pool money, most of which goes to that one higher pick.

It doesn’t guarantee anything and it’s been proven over and over again that you can get very good players outside the top 10. It’s harder to get those players outside the top 10 but they exist, as the Os themselves have proven.

There is nothing that is guaranteed in this sport, and using the logic you’re using here, it is not necessary to tank at all. 
 

I didn’t like the 2021 season any more than you did but long term it probably did extend our window. 

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

This assumes a lot of things..main one being that if you add to the team that you are only adding to a 52 win team, which I think is bs.

And if you do spend that money and do better, maybe you have those guys in place and we celebrate a playoff appearance in 2022 as well.

We can play “what if” all day.  Elias had a plan, he executed it, and it has brought the team to where it is.  Either you are satisfied with how it worked out, or you’re not.   I am 100% satisfied.   

[Sports Guy]

Just now, dystopia said:

There is nothing that is guaranteed in this sport, and using the logic you’re using here, it is not necessary to tank at all. 
 

I didn’t like the 2021 season any more than you did but long term it probably did extend our window. 

I think tanking for 1-2 seasons is fine. Get rid of all your contracts, try to get an infusion of younger players through a few high picks and trades and then reload…Ala exactly what the Rangers did.(although I wouldn’t have done it the way they did)

Anything beyond that is a money grab for ownership.

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, Too Tall said:

Personnally, I don't give a crap about Buster and three years ago. EVERYONE didn't think we would be HERE now including all us experts on here. WE ARE HERE! Now, we have more business to take care of while we continue to surprise the folks that enjoyed putting us down. 

I did…I thought 2022 was a year where we should compete and 2023 was a year we should make the playoffs.

Now, I didn’t think those things would happen when those years got there but if you asked me in 2020 or 2021, that was my exact expectation.

There was no reason not to be in this position with the proper moves and proper investment into the team.

I didn’t think those things were done because of ownership but credit to Elias for making the right moves and credit to this coaching staff for getting these guys ready. I really don’t think that gets talked about enough.

[LookinUp]

22 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Wrong…longer tanking equals the chance to get one higher pick and more draft pool money, most of which goes to that one higher pick.

It doesn’t guarantee anything and it’s been proven over and over again that you can get very good players outside the top 10. It’s harder to get those players outside the top 10 but they exist, as the Os themselves have proven.

You do realize that you're undermining your point in your own post, right? I get the you don't "have to" tank for so long argument, but by "it's harder" you're actually saying that the probabilities are lower to get those players when you don't lose a lot, which means tanking helps. 

Anyway, it's an old discussion that really isn't relevant now. Great job by Elias, Hyde and the boys. I love this team. Last night's game, with like 4 weird/close plays at 1B involving the pitcher, was just another example of a team that just seems to have that "it" factor.

 

[Sports Guy]

Just now, LookinUp said:

You do realize that you're undermining your point in your own post, right? I get the you don't "have to" tank for so long argument, but by "it's harder" you're actually saying that the probabilities are lower to get those players when you don't lose a lot, which means tanking helps. 

Anyway, it's an old discussion that really isn't relevant now. Great job by Elias, Hyde and the boys. I love this team. Last night's game, with like 4 weird/close plays at 1B involving the pitcher, was just another example of a team that just seems to have that "it" factor.

 

Can you show me where I said getting a chance at good players doesn’t help?

The point is that you can get good players in many ways. You don’t need top 5 picks to get good players.

In the draft itself, a top 5 pick means you have a better chance to obtain 1 good player.  Baseball teams don’t win because of 1 player. This isn’t the NFL or NBA.  However, in the MLB draft, you don’t need a top 5 to get a good player. There are countless of examples of players that prove that to be correct.