I'm already over this offseason.

[Sports Guy]

Just now, interloper said:

Good luck getting all those top picks otherwise. You have to tank if you're a smaller market team. You just do. I don't care if people don't like it, or it's bad for the game - I agree with all that. But you have to do it. Especially if the organization was in the dire state that Elias found it. 

The Rays did the same exact thing years ago. And now they don't have to because they did the work up front and created a pipeline. Just like the Astros did. It works and it was always part of Elias' plan. 

People are getting their ire up approx. 1 year too early, IMO. These gripes make a lot more sense in the off-season of 2022. Essentially you are complaining about 2 losing years under Elias. Because let's face it, 2020 basically didn't exist. 60 games is nothing, none of the prospects played, just write it off. 

So we're whining about losing in 2019 and 2021? That's all the rebuild people can stomach? Cry me a river man. 

First of all, I don’t mind tanking for a year or 2.  It takes time to get rid of your contracts and things like that.

Saying to have to tank  longer that is just dumb.  
 

And btw, plenty of teams that win every year and pick at the bottom of the draft get good players.  You don’t have to pick high to get good players. That’s another fallacy and is proven wrong all the time.

And we are discussing 2022.  It’s already been said that sucking from 2019-2021 was acceptable to a certain extent, so the last paragraph there is just wrong.

[LookinUp]

11 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I think most of you are fooling yourselves if you don’t think there is value to putting a product on the field that is more watchable, especially considering how bad this team has been for the better part of the last 25 years.

There is also nothing wrong with signing a guy a year early.  People are saying we must have a vet catcher for Adley.  Why?  To teach him right?  For someone to learn from, correct?

Why can’t we do that with a vet starter?  Grayson will be here.  Other young pitchers will be here.  Why can’t they also benefit from that?

This is actually an interesting discussion that's better than the one above. 

Does adding talent in a losing year help prepare our young core players for winning years? If the answer is yes, go for it. If the answer is as statistically supportable as giving a hitter protection in the lineup, it would seem like a waste of resources.

Elias, rightly or wrongly, seems to think the value of learning from the likes of Steven Matz to our young guys is negligible.

 

Quote

Some of you have this notion that spending money now means we will be back to the 2000s.  How does that even make sense?  The 2000s sucked because the team ignored the minor leagues, drafted and developed poorly, didn’t trade guys when they should have and just made a serious of comically stupid moves.

Well, if I’m reading this board correctly, people love Elias, think the farm system is great and that the future is bright.  If you actually believe those things, how can you actually believe that spending money is going to kill all the momentum?  

1. Getting the 10th pick is bad for Elias' draft strategy. We can't sit here and celebrate Henderson, Mayo and Baumler without realizing that the larger the draft pool, the more guys like that we can get. So yeah, winning more does hurt the long term rebuild.

2. Spending 10's of millions on a middling team will make it less likely for ownership to spend when it matters. That's my opinion, but it's informed by what you also seem to know...that the Angelos family is not coming to the table with deep pockets. 

I think Elias is putting this organization on the best financial footing possible for the next competitive window, and anything that takes away from that will hurt us during the next competitive window.

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

That's an awful lot of "What if Elias reacts this way" for my tastes. I'm disappointed they don't seem to be spending this offseason. If they don't do it next offseason, I will be extremely unhappy with the direction of the franchise.

Unless a miracle like 2012 happens and like everyone they have in the wings/pick up on waivers ends up being really great. But I'm not counting on that

To be clear, all ire is and should be pointed at the direction of ownership, not Elias.

There will be things Elias can do without ownership needing to be involved and we will see if he does them but the overall issue is how awful ownership is.

[ChosenOne21]

Just now, LookinUp said:

2. Spending 10's of millions on a middling team will make it less likely for ownership to spend when it matters. That's my opinion, but it's informed by what you also seem to know...that the Angelos family is not coming to the table with deep pockets. 

I think the idea here is that we aren't spending on a middling team so much as we're putting the pieces in place for a year or two from now when we're ready to be competitive

[LookinUp]

1 minute ago, ChosenOne21 said:

I think the idea here is that we aren't spending on a middling team so much as we're putting the pieces in place for a year or two from now when we're ready to be competitive

So you're assuming that we need to do that now instead of doing it in a year or two? I think that's a fair thought, but not necessarily a real-world constraint.

If the plan is to flip a switch and go for it, I'd imagine they'll have a plan for what they can do at that time. Otherwise they wouldn't be following their own data.

[interloper]

8 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

First of all, I don’t mind tanking for a year or 2.  It takes time to get rid of your contracts and things like that.

Saying to have to tank  longer that is just dumb.  
 

And btw, plenty of teams that win every year and pick at the bottom of the draft get good players.  You don’t have to pick high to get good players. That’s another fallacy and is proven wrong all the time.

And we are discussing 2022.  It’s already been said that sucking from 2019-2021 was acceptable to a certain extent, so the last paragraph there is just wrong.

I'm saying if you want to get all up in arms about this stuff, the time is AFTER the 2022 season heading into 2023. If anyone thought the deal was that we'd lose for 2 years during a full-scale, down-to-the-studs rebuild after Elias' hire, you're absolutely fooling yourself. This was a 3-5 year deal. We're heading into year 2.5 basically. 

I get that people want some expenditures now to set up for 2023 and that's not an unreasonable take. But it's unreasonable to get THIS surly about not taking that route when the guys in charge clearly have a plan that they're seeing through the way they think is best. I'm not going to judge that plan for another couple years. I don't necessarily like that the budget has been scaled back, but it is what it is. And if ownership says the budget is being scaled back for these few years, Elias is doing the absolute best things possible while working within that frame. He's being completely proactive. It will remain to be seen what happens if/when the pocketbooks get opened up. 

 

EDIT: I see above you're saying ire should be directed at ownership not Elias and I agree. But I also just don't care that much and I don't understand why people do right now. Because it's just not time to care yet IMO. 

[Sports Guy]

Just now, LookinUp said:

This is actually an interesting discussion that's better than the one above. 

Does adding talent in a losing year help prepare our young core players for winning years? If the answer is yes, go for it. If the answer is as statistically supportable as giving a hitter protection in the lineup, it would seem like a waste of resources.

Elias, rightly or wrongly, seems to think the value of learning from the likes of Steven Matz to our young guys is negligible.

 

1. Getting the 10th pick is bad for Elias' draft strategy. We can't sit here and celebrate Henderson, Mayo and Baumler without realizing that the larger the draft pool, the more guys like that we can get. So yeah, winning more does hurt the long term rebuild.

2. Spending 10's of millions on a middling team will make it less likely for ownership to spend when it matters. That's my opinion, but it's informed by what you also seem to know...that the Angelos family is not coming to the table with deep pockets. 

I think Elias is putting this organization on the best financial footing possible for the next competitive window, and anything that takes away from that will hurt us during the next competitive window.

There is so much wrong with this post.

First of all, we have no idea what Elias thinks.  I bet if he had an ownership that said, go for it, he would.  Texas is already trying to jump back into things.  Detroit is saying go do it.  It’s ownership holding back Elias, not Elias himself.

The idea of it hurting his draft strategy is just wrong.  First of all, teams sign overslot guys at every draft position.  You don’t have to draft 2nd to get an overslot guy later.  Secondly, even if you want to talk specific players, there are always other guys drafted in those rounds that could be really good.  The Os took Henderson with the 42nd pick..but they also got Stowers, who you could argue is a better prospect, 30 picks later.  The Mets took Matthew Allan, a guy who has been a top 50 guy, over 40 picks later.  And I bet there will be other names that came after Henderson that are as good or better MLers than him.  The Os took Westburg and then got a better prospect multiple rounds later.  In other words, you can get talent all throughout the draft and you don’t need to be in a certain draft slot to do it.

I don’t think we know anything about what this version of ownership is going to do.  We know they have prioritized saving money over anything else at the ML level.  We also know they have shown a willingness to spend on infrastructure, which was needed so badly but is a drop in the bucket financially to what needs to be done at the Ml level.  We also know that this team can sustain a payroll well into the 9 figure area and that they aren’t going to be anywhere close to that for quite some time.  The money and ability to spend is clearly there and there is no reason to justify why they can’t do it now.

[Philip]

1 hour ago, owknows said:

I think there's a pretty healthy approach evolving for midmarket teams. The intent being to develop a sustainable farm. Graduate quality players into the Majors. Play them for their value years of control. Trade them for replenishment of the farm before their value is beyond your budget. Lather, rinse, repeat.

You and others have made it clear that you don't think much of this strategy. You suggest that you'd prefer to spend money on veteran players. And that large contracts which don't pan out have no negative impact on the team's ability to win.

I disagree.

You also suggest that this strategy is unprecedented.

I would disagree here as well.

Teams employing the Tampa model should certainly be looking at FA resources as they get into competitive mode. But they would in my opinion be wise to avoid big contracts and long contracts.

And should certainly stay their hand until a FA acquisition has the potential to impact post-season prospects.

You are certainly free to disagree. But it's going to take more than hyperbole to persuade otherwise.

That is incorrect, no one is suggesting stupid spending. At the same time no one is assuming we can fill all of our needs from within. Even the Yanks and Rays can’t do that.

For the hundredth time it is possible To start improving now, and it is necessary, because we have two of our long-term stars debuting this season, plus potentially two other solid pieces also debuting this season. It is unforgivable to waste their service time on an embarrassing floundering team, And it will help them if we surround them with good players. That is what @Sports Guyis suggesting. I disagree with @Moose Milliganthat Matz Would have been a good sign although he had a good year last year. However, I do agree that a sign like that will been a signal that Mike has shifted gears.

Regarding January dumpster diving, Dan did that constantly. He never made any serious searching until all the good free agents had already signed which is why we ended up with over priced and lousy players. Let’s not do that again, please? No more Freddie Garcia’s.

So in conclusion, we do need to do something, we’ve got to start the upward trajectory in a meaningful way and we got to do it now, but at the same time we don’t need to sign any $60 million contracts because the last several times we have done it it was just flushing money down the toilet.

 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Yea, you are right.  We should just discuss how great things are and how super exciting it is to have the top ranked farm system.  The amount of wins that stuff is adding is great!!

Though I detest the offseason, I’m still interested to see what happens.  In 2012 we had a payroll that was $10 mm less than in 2011, but almost every move Duquette made panned out, some young players gelled, and boom we were in the playoffs.  I don’t think we can expect playoff contention starting from a 52 win team, but I’m certainly not ruling out major improvement.   I don’t interpret Elias’ statements as broadly as some do. I don’t expect major fireworks this offseason but there could be moves more significant than adding a Galvis or a Harvey.   We’ll see.  

I remember Duquette coming back from the 2011 Winter Meetings with Dana Eveland as his major acquisition, and being mocked.   
 

[Ruzious]

The best way to move this offseason could be by taking on contracts allowing other teams to avoid/reduce luxury tax bills - rather than overspending on free agents.  

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, Ruzious said:

The best way to move this offseason could be by taking on contracts allowing other teams to avoid/reduce luxury tax bills - rather than overspending on free agents.  

Absolutely.  This is where a Paul DeJong trade could come into play.  
 

It doesn’t have to be FA deals.  There are so many ways to improve this team.

[Tony-OH]

2 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

Matz to the Cardinals, 4 years/44 million.

That's Ubaldo money. That's Cobb money.  That's a contract this team easily could have afforded.  Even if they had to pay a little extra because we suck and the Cardinals don't, they could have gotten him.  

Yep, I'm already over this offseason, as usual there's no aggressive moves, no targeted list of players they want to go after and make offers to.  As usual, it'll be table scraps come mid February when we're looking around to see who hasn't signed and is desperate to land somewhere.  It's as plain as day to me that this franchise is going to wait until AR, G-Rod, Hall and whoever else is up before they spend anything.  

 

I gotta admit, I'm a little perplexed why he went so cheap. I looked at all all his numbers and besides his disaster COVID 2020, he's thrown the ball well. He's a sinker, changeup guy, with a below average curveball and slider, but he's a pretty good 4th starter. He's pitched well against the AL East teams.

I know Elias and company hates sinkerballers and maybe the numbers show guys with his stuff fall off after 30 (he'll pitch from 31-34 in this contract), but it seems to me that those were very realistic numbers for a guy who should be decent in the rotation over the length of his contract.

I do think though that Elias is not going to spend until he sees the prospect up and doing well and then figures out where his holes are and then spend.

While 2022 should not be like 2021 when the team was bringing up never will be's and never should have beens up to play, this season should be about evaluating as many prospects that are ready as possible.

Matz is not going to make much difference for the Orioles this year and probably next, and who knows what he will look like in 2024 when he's 33. And by then the Orioles may have acquired better options.

I'm more perplexed as to why he went so cheap and why Toronto didn't try to keep him for that money. 

[Philip]

44 minutes ago, luismatos4prez said:

I totally agree with the sentiment of this post.

But I'm naively hoping they'll extend Trey, not trade Means, sign a ML SS, and 2 ML SPs. I'm ready to be disappointed.

We should not extend Trey, or Mountcastle or AR. But especially not Trey. 
But that is a tangential topic.

[Frobby]

7 minutes ago, Philip said:

We should not extend Trey, or Mountcastle or AR. But especially not Trey. 
But that is a tangential topic.

I wish it made sense to extend Trey, but it doesn’t.   Hoping he has a great year, though, and I think there’s a good chance of that with a normal offseason to rest up.   

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I wish it made sense to extend Trey, but it doesn’t.   Hoping he has a great year, though, and I think there’s a good chance of that with a normal offseason to rest up.   

I’m hoping Trey is dealt and we are able to get back some near Ml ready or Ml ready relief talent.  Would love to get 1 or 2 power arms for him. 
 

Of course, I will take the best deal but that’s the type of deal that I think is realistic and it helps an area of need.