(Edit: Orioles get 1st pick after walkoff homer by Diamondbacks)

[UMDTerrapins]

SG…….would the Nats’ current approach be more aligned with your thinking? In a down year they managed to sell off assets and restock their affiliates (their system talent was previously awful but now looks decent) but they aren’t gutting the ML product in the same way the O’s did. 

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, UMDTerrapins said:

SG…….would the Nats’ current approach be more aligned with your thinking? In a down year they managed to sell off assets and restock their affiliates (their system talent was previously awful but now looks decent) but they aren’t gutting the ML product in the same way the O’s did. 

I have zero issue with the gutting of the ML product at first.  I wanted that and I’m glad they did it. I wanted them to get more depth and improve payroll flexibility long term and roster flexibility.  Those are all important and great things that the team has accomplished.

 I just think you don’t have to keep ignoring the ML Product for as long as they have.  That’s all I’m saying.  And that goes for any team.

I saw the Rangers GM say they plan on spending big in FA this year.  We will see what happens but they have been mediocre since 2016.  They haven’t been this bad and haven’t been as bad as the Os have been but they didn’t capitalize on winning in the high 70s a few times.  But they don’t want to keep being a loser, so they are going to ramp up what they have been doing.  Will it work?  Who knows?  If the Os go out and get top FAs, will that work?  Who knows.  I just think it’s time to really address the ML team.  
 

I think this rebuild, taking this long, is about ownership saving money.  I think that is the case for any team that does it because it is a proven fact that you don’t need to lose to accomplish these things and the teams that have done, can only point to a few players that were on their winning WS team that were as a result of tanking.  

 

[LTO's]

17 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

they should be doing more for the on field product.

Like what? What specifically and at what cost? It's easy to just say this but the fact is the Orioles are competing with 29 other teams for any FA of value. Not only are they at a financial disadvantage for most players, they also just aren't an attractive destination right now. Especially for pitching which is obviously what they need more than anything. 

19 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Yes, I think there is value (at this point in the rebuild) to having a 75ish win team vs a 50ish win team.

Yeah obviously there is value in winning 25 more games. But the Orioles were never going to sniff 75 wins this year no matter what. You'd be delusional to think otherwise. So the real question is what is the value of winning 55-57 vs. 50? How much more are you spending to get those 5ish extra wins? I think your main issue is that you just haven't been at all realistic about the talent on this 40 man roster and how it stacks up with the rest of the teams in the American League. If you honestly thought that with modest investments they could win 75 games this year then you're lost. 

27 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The Cubs and Astros are not examples that tanking and rebuilding works imo.  They are examples of drafting and developing well and making smart trades and FA signings and, as is always needed in all sports, they got lucky.

1. Yes, the absolutely are. 2. When has Elias ever said that this just involved losing a bunch of games to get high draft picks? He never has. Your projecting your ignorance about what a rebuild is onto this FO.  The main purpose of a rebuild is to slash payroll while the team isn't a competitor and use those savings on the good teams of the future. Not a single team in baseball is tanking for a top 5 pick. Elias has made many trades despite having far less ML talent to trade than most teams at a start of a rebuild. Let's see how those pan out. He's also said the team will sign FAs. Not sure what distinction you are trying to make between the Os and the Astros/Cubs. It doesn't exist. 

39 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

 The problem I have with the ML team is the poor development at the Ml level.

Who? I see a team full of players who have pretty exclusively been said to have a slim chance at becoming valuable big league regulars (45-50 FV prospects). Keep in mind that the majority of these prospects don't pan out. Some of those guys have surpassed that assessment (Wells, Means, Mullins), some are right on that assessment (Hays, Santander, Scott, Urias) and some have underperformed that assessment (Kremer, Akin, Lowther, Stewart). The rest are just waiver claims and Mil FAs. Again, it just seems like you overrated a lot of these guys and didn't listen to the projections that most sources had for them. Also, a lot of these guys are still young. 

[UMDTerrapins]

36 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I have zero issue with the gutting of the ML product at first.  I wanted that and I’m glad they did it. I wanted them to get more depth and improve payroll flexibility long term and roster flexibility.  Those are all important and great things that the team has accomplished.

 I just think you don’t have to keep ignoring the ML Product for as long as they have.  That’s all I’m saying.  And that goes for any team.

I saw the Rangers GM say they plan on spending big in FA this year.  We will see what happens but they have been mediocre since 2016.  They haven’t been this bad and haven’t been as bad as the Os have been but they didn’t capitalize on winning in the high 70s a few times.  But they don’t want to keep being a loser, so they are going to ramp up what they have been doing.  Will it work?  Who knows?  If the Os go out and get top FAs, will that work?  Who knows.  I just think it’s time to really address the ML team.  
 

I think this rebuild, taking this long, is about ownership saving money.  I think that is the case for any team that does it because it is a proven fact that you don’t need to lose to accomplish these things and the teams that have done, can only point to a few players that were on their winning WS team that were as a result of tanking.  

 

Fair enough.....and a good explanation. Until they prove otherwise, I don't much faith in the O's ever having payrolls again (anytime soon) that are in the top third of teams. Hopefully ownership learned a lesson in 2018 about holding onto assets too long. I think some of that had to do with Angelos' age and making one last stab at the playoffs. Anyhow, in order to remain competitive long term I think we're going to have to be one of those teams that trades off valuable ML players for prospects while still trying to remain competitive. I don't think we have to go the Tampa Bay extremes, but if we want to stay off this tanking/competing roller coaster our front office is going to have to operate differently than we're accustomed to. And that begins with the Angelos family can't be involved in personnel decisions/contracts ever again. 

When I blew out my arm by throwing too many curveballs too young, my daydream changed to being the GM of the Orioles one day. Admit it, you want to be GM too. Come on......fess up! We all know it's true.   I'm thinking you'd do pretty well.....as long as you could restrain yourself from physically harming one of the Angelos clan. 

[Sports Guy]

11 minutes ago, LTO's said:

Quote

Like what? What specifically and at what cost? It's easy to just say this but the fact is the Orioles are competing with 29 other teams for any FA of value. Not only are they at a financial disadvantage for most players, they also just aren't an attractive destination right now. Especially for pitching which is obviously what they need more than anything. 

 

Well again, there were a lot of paths to take.  A lot of teams just wanted to shed salaries after 2020.  Kris Bryant, as an example, was available and no one was jumping for him after a poor 2020.  Could you have gotten him cheaply? I don't know but the Cubs definitely wanted to save money.   A lot of teams did, so the idea that we aren't an attractive destination or something like that is irrelevant in trades unless there is a NTC to the Os involved.  And sure, they could have signed some players.  I wanted them to address the pen with one solid reliever and bring in 2 ML starters.  They addressed the offense in what I felt was a fair way although I still would have liked to have seen more done via trades.   Also, I would have looked to take on money to also get back a prospect or 2 in the deals.  Would this have worked?  In hindsight, probably not but that also doesn't mean we wouldn't be better off long term either.  But there is risk in doing anything you do.  For me, I would have kept the financial commitments to a 1-2 years, so that we keep the payroll and roster flexibility long term.

 

11 minutes ago, LTO's said:

 

Quote

Yeah obviously there is value in winning 25 more games. But the Orioles were never going to sniff 75 wins this year no matter what. You'd be delusional to think otherwise. So the real question is what is the value of winning 55-57 vs. 50? How much more are you spending to get those 5ish extra wins? I think your main issue is that you just haven't been at all realistic about the talent on this 40 man roster and how it stacks up with the rest of the teams in the American League. If you honestly thought that with modest investments they could win 75 games this year then you're lost. 

I disagree with this and I tend to doubt you felt this was a 50 win team in April.  Things fall apart and sh*t happens but that doesn't mean you don't try.  I will say that I definitely expected more out of these guys:

Franco, Santander, Akin, Kremer, Scott, Mountcastle, Hays, Lowther, amongst others.  Some have still be ok and have provided some value and others have been terrible.  Again, I am guessing you didn't think that group would be a complete failure.  If those guys perform at a decent level and you add in some real MLers and I think the team could have been better.  You could run this season back again with the same team and be a lot better than this version.  Means doesn't get hurt, Mountcastle starts off better, Santander isn';t hurting for this long, etc...there is a reason advance stat sites run 1000s of sims for things, because the results are over the map.  

So, did I overrate some guys?  I guess I did.  I saw the progress made last year, their success in the minors and figured they wouldn't be awful.  I was wrong...as was everyone else.

 

Quote

1. Yes, the absolutely are. 2. When has Elias ever said that this just involved losing a bunch of games to get high draft picks? He never has. Your projecting your ignorance about what a rebuild is onto this FO.  The main purpose of a rebuild is to slash payroll while the team isn't a competitor and use those savings on the good teams of the future. Not a single team in baseball is tanking for a top 5 pick. Elias has made many trades despite having far less ML talent to trade than most teams at a start of a rebuild. Let's see how those pan out. He's also said the team will sign FAs. Not sure what distinction you are trying to make between the Os and the Astros/Cubs. It doesn't exist. 

This is just wrong.  What else you say about rebuilding is true and I have never said anything remotely different.  But getting that top pick is the only unique thing that you accomplish by rebuilding.  You can literally do everything else and still be a much more representative product than what they  are.

 

Quote

Who? I see a team full of players who have pretty exclusively been said to have a slim chance at becoming valuable big league regulars (45-50 FV prospects). Keep in mind that the majority of these prospects don't pan out. Some of those guys have surpassed that assessment (Wells, Means, Mullins), some are right on that assessment (Hays, Santander, Scott, Urias) and some have underperformed that assessment (Kremer, Akin, Lowther, Stewart). The rest are just waiver claims and Mil FAs. Again, it just seems like you overrated a lot of these guys and didn't listen to the projections that most sources had for them. Also, a lot of these guys are still young. 

Again, no one thought Akin would have a 7+ ERA...or that Kremer would be this bad.  Stop acting like you thought that.  If those guys were just carrying 5 ERAs, we would be in much better shape.  

 

[Sports Guy]

Ugh...the formatting of that post didn't come out well @LTO's  Apologies on that but answers are in there.

[Sports Guy]

13 minutes ago, UMDTerrapins said:

Fair enough.....and a good explanation. Until they prove otherwise, I don't much faith in the O's ever having payrolls again (anytime soon) that are in the top third of teams. Hopefully ownership learned a lesson in 2018 about holding onto assets too long. I think some of that had to do with Angelos' age and making one last stab at the playoffs. Anyhow, in order to remain competitive long term I think we're going to have to be one of those teams that trades off valuable ML players for prospects while still trying to remain competitive. I don't think we have to go the Tampa Bay extremes, but if we want to stay off this tanking/competing roller coaster our front office is going to have to operate differently than we're accustomed to. And that begins with the Angelos family can't be involved in personnel decisions/contracts ever again. 

When I blew out my arm by throwing too many curveballs too young, my daydream changed to being the GM of the Orioles one day. Admit it, you want to be GM too. Come on......fess up! We all know it's true.   I'm thinking you'd do pretty well.....as long as you could restrain yourself from physically harming one of the Angelos clan. 

I think this team will spend 120-160M again.  My question is, how will the money be spent?  By that I mean, will it be spent on basically existing talent and some cheap FAs mixed in (think the mid 2010s teams) or will they also make big purchases?

I am largely against free agency, especially 5+ year deals.  But I do think this team needs to take some risks, up to a certain point.  Maybe my certain point isn't enough and if so, so be it.  That just means the trade market will be that much more important.

[spiritof66]

3 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

I think this team will spend 120-160M again.  My question is, how will the money be spent?  By that I mean, will it be spent on basically existing talent and some cheap FAs mixed in (think the mid 2010s teams) or will they also make big purchases?

I am largely against free agency, especially 5+ year deals.  But I do think this team needs to take some risks, up to a certain point.  Maybe my certain point isn't enough and if so, so be it.  That just means the trade market will be that much more important.

That would be nice, but I see two problems with it. The first is that the team is spending a lot more money on stuff other than MLB payroll than it did in the mid-2010s, so an MLB payroll at that level would require them to spend more money, after years of crappy local revenues (including 2020).

The other is that, if the Angeloses are planning to sell the team (or if the other owners force them to sell), why should they throw away their money to improve a team that's not going to be theirs?

[Sports Guy]

11 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

That would be nice, but I see two problems with it. The first is that the team is spending a lot more money on stuff other than MLB payroll than it did in the mid-2010s, so an MLB payroll at that level would require them to spend more money, after years of crappy local revenues (including 2020).

The other is that, if the Angeloses are planning to sell the team (or if the other owners force them to sell), why should they throw away their money to improve a team that's not going to be theirs?

Those 2 things shouldn’t be intertwined.  But even if you want to say there is a baseball OPS budget, the only real difference in spending is Intl and that is only what, 8-10M?  So even if that has to be taken off, they should still be able to spend up to 150M.

[spiritof66]

36 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Those 2 things shouldn’t be intertwined.  But even if you want to say there is a baseball OPS budget, the only real difference in spending is Intl and that is only what, 8-10M?  So even if that has to be taken off, they should still be able to spend up to 150M.

It's not just the international bonuses that Peter Angelos didn't pay. We've been told there have been upgrades and investments in scouting, facilities, instructional staff, analytics personnel and resources, and probably other things I'm forgetting. How much more are the Orioles spending on non-MLB payroll than they did in 2014-16? I have no idea. It's pretty much a secret.

And it's not just a matter of what the Angeloses will be able to spend, but also how much of that they want to spend. I suspect there will be a big difference between the two. I hope I'm wrong.

[Sports Guy]

2 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

It's not just the international bonuses that Peter Angelos didn't pay. We've been told there have been upgrades and investments in scouting, facilities, instructional staff, analytics personnel and resources, and probably other things I'm forgetting. How much more are the Orioles spending on non-MLB payroll than they did in 2014-16? I have no idea. It's pretty much a secret.

And it's not just a matter of what the Angeloses will be able to spend, but also how much of that they want to spend. I suspect there will be a big difference between the two. I hope I'm wrong.

Whatever the number is, it’s a drop in the bucket.  It’s meaningless.

[Frobby]

7 hours ago, UMDTerrapins said:

SG…….would the Nats’ current approach be more aligned with your thinking? In a down year they managed to sell off assets and restock their affiliates (their system talent was previously awful but now looks decent) but they aren’t gutting the ML product in the same way the O’s did. 

What product did the O’s gut?   They won 47 games in 2018.    They didn’t need to gut it, the team already sucked.   

[Pickles]

34 minutes ago, Frobby said:

What product did the O’s gut?   They won 47 games in 2018.    They didn’t need to gut it, the team already sucked.   

I guess this fact is like Jimi Hendrix: A lot of people listen to it, but they just can't hear it.

[spiritof66]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Whatever the number is, it’s a drop in the bucket.  It’s meaningless.

I'm not sure how you know that. I don't.

[Sports Guy]

13 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

I'm not sure how you know that. I don't.

Well think about it.  How much could it possibly cost to upkeep it and stuff like that?

Even building it.  How much could it cost?  
 

There are a lot of things they may be paying for but the cost of doing things and the run that down there can’t be that much.  We aren’t talking about $20-50M a year.