Orioles farm system ranked no. 2

[Frobby]

Just now, Explosivo said:

I think you can look at his time at the Astros for that answer. 

Why?  He wasn’t the GM there.  His responsibilities had nothing to do with signing or trading for major leaguers.  

[Explosivo]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Why?  He wasn’t the GM there.  His responsibilities had nothing to do with signing or trading for major leaguers.  

Yes of course. You don’t think he had input? Game plans work top down but there is always communication to get everyone on the same page. I have no reason to doubt Elias won’t be successful signing needed free agents, all things considered. We will have the money to spend when the time comes to compete for the title. Most free agents want to go to a team that they feel will win it all. In that respect, we will have a lot to sell them combined with the payroll flexibility.

[Mr. Chewbacca Jr.]

I don't really take a lot of stock in Farm System rankings. They're pretty arbitrary and depend a lot on the methodology of the publication.

The O's moved up because other teams promoted their guys - the Rays would probably still be #1 if Wander Franco, Arozarena, Luis Patiño, etc still counted as prospects. The O's will drop when GrayRod and Adley are promoted. It's all kind of silly.

Personally, I still think the O's Farm System is pretty top-heavy and isn't nearly as deep as it needs to be.

 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Explosivo said:

Yes of course. You don’t think he had input? Game plans work top down but there is always communication to get everyone on the same page. I have no reason to doubt Elias won’t be successful signing needed free agents, all things considered. We will have the money to spend when the time comes to compete for the title. Most free agents want to go to a team that they feel will win it all. In that respect, we will have a lot to sell them combined with the payroll flexibility.

I don't think he had input into those areas.  Why would he?

I think he had input in the draft, and they had inconsistent results.

 

[fitzi22]

10 minutes ago, Explosivo said:

Again, we have done that already for the purpose of these two lost years. We weren’t going to be competitive so we are looking for a different player than one we would be looking for with a team vying for the World Series. Please tell me you can understand that point.

There have literally been hundreds of articles written questioning why Elias for the most part has not traded away his cheap controllable bullpen pieces the last 2 years. If these are lost seasons where we are attempting to add as much young minor league talent as possible then why wouldn’t you make the trade, lose more games and draft higher while adding minor league pieces to build with?  Our current front office is as adept to trades and free agency as they were with the international market for the last 10 years.

[Frobby]

28 minutes ago, fitzi22 said:

There have literally been hundreds of articles written questioning why Elias for the most part has not traded away his cheap controllable bullpen pieces the last 2 years. If these are lost seasons where we are attempting to add as much young minor league talent as possible then why wouldn’t you make the trade, lose more games and draft higher while adding minor league pieces to build with?  Our current front office is as adept to trades and free agency as they were with the international market for the last 10 years.

Literally hundreds of articles?   I call BS.  And in case you didn’t notice, we traded Bleier, Givens and Castro last year.  I doubt there was much of a market for anyone else last year.   

[foxfield]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

Yes I think he won't.

I don't think ownership will authorize it.

I think ownership's driving goal is maximizing their revenue stream.

We'll see.

You really think this?  Even if the team begins to improve?

59 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You do realized that they have had a change in ownership since then right?

I never said Peter Angelos was cheap.  I defended his willingness to spend while bemoaning his choices to spend on.

I've seen nothing from the sons that indicate to me that they are willing to spend when the time comes. 

I also don't hate ownership...what would the point of that be?  It's their asset if they want to use it to make money why should I hate them for it?

And if you want to educate yourself on a great rebuild?

https://www.amazon.com/Wizard-Waxahachie-Richards-Baseball-American/dp/0870745565

This is not true.

[Philip]

13 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Literally hundreds of articles?   I call BS.  And in case you didn’t notice, we traded Bleier, Givens and Castro last year.  I doubt there was much of a market for anyone else last year.   

 

13 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Literally hundreds of articles?   I call BS.  And in case you didn’t notice, we traded Bleier, Givens and Castro last year.  I doubt there was much of a market for anyone else last year.   

Frobby has a point, why didn’t Mike trade Scott and Fry? They aren’t going to be part of our next good team, either Because of cost or performance. Therefore he should’ve taken what he could’ve gotten this summer, and he knows that, but he didn’t make a trade. That was either because he wasn’t allowed to or because he decided to hold out for the best possible deal, which never came. We don’t know the answer to that.

Farm rankings are meaningless. Any team can be ranked in the top 10 if they have two outstanding prospects.

[fitzi22]

11 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Literally hundreds of articles?   I call BS.  And in case you didn’t notice, we traded Bleier, Givens and Castro last year.  I doubt there was much of a market for anyone else last year.   

Paul Fry, Dillon Tate, Cole Sulser, Tanner Scott were all tradeable pieces Elias elected to hold onto.  With them we almost have the worst record in baseball.  Without them we probably do.  Why hold onto them if we are building the minors?  

[Philip]

Just now, fitzi22 said:

Paul Fry, Dillon Tate, Cole Sulser, Tanner Scott were all tradeable pieces Elias elected to hold onto.  With them we almost have the worst record in baseball.  Without them we probably do.  Why hold onto them if we are building the minors?  

My comment was kind of garbled because I wasn’t clear who I was responding to I think Frobby has a point, But I also agree that Mike should have traded his tradable guys, and we don’t know why he did not. It’s possible that they don’t really have any value. That wouldn’t surprise me a bit and it’s possible that Mike overvalued them. It’s also possible that ownership said no, and we don’t know.

[Frobby]

11 minutes ago, fitzi22 said:

Paul Fry, Dillon Tate, Cole Sulser, Tanner Scott were all tradeable pieces Elias elected to hold onto.  With them we almost have the worst record in baseball.  Without them we probably do.  Why hold onto them if we are building the minors?  

Because he thinks we’ll get better offers later?   Because the offers we did get wouldn’t have moved the needle?   I think Elias has proven not to be shy about trading major leaguers for minor leaguers, witness Givens, Castro, Bleier, Bundy, Iglesias, Cashner, Galvis.  All those guys had major league value but he traded them to build for the future.  I won’t include Villar and Cobb, who were traded largely to dump their salaries rather than to acquire talent.   

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Because he thinks we’ll get better offers later?   Because the offers we did get wouldn’t have moved the needle?   I think Elias has proven not to be shy about trading major leaguers for minor leaguers, witness Givens, Castro, Bleier, Bundy, Iglesias, Cashner, Galvis.  All those guys had major league value but he traded them to build for the future.  I won’t include Villar and Cobb, who were traded largely to dump their salaries rather than to acquire talent.   

I think dumping salaries was a component to almost all of those trades.  Certainly Givens, Bundy and Cashner. 

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think dumping salaries was a component to almost all of those trades.  Certainly Givens, Bundy and Cashner. 

Put it this way, I don’t think the salary in those deals hampered the return.   

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Put it this way, I don’t think the salary in those deals hampered the return.   

Is Elio Prado even still playing ball?  Noelberth Romero has at least made it stateside.

Safe to say the Cashner deal wasn't about accumulating talent.

[fitzi22]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think dumping salaries was a component to almost all of those trades.  Certainly Givens, Bundy and Cashner. 

Exactly my point.  Bleier and Castro were going to demand a larger financial commitment as well.  I believe the reason we kept Sulser, Tate, Scott and Fry is also for financial reasons.  In my opinion financial reasons far outweigh maximizing trade value with this current regime.