Competitive window vs perennial contender

[btdart20]

I see a few comments that refer to competitive windows while  Elias has talked about building a perennial contender.

What’s the difference from a practical perspective?  From a transactional/trade perspective?  Org build perspective?  Do FA signings look different?  Does opportunity for prospects differ?

Can a small/mid-market team (i.e. long term budget constraints) like the O’s compete on a regular basis with how the CBA is designed?

[Sports Guy]

10 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

I see a few comments that refer to competitive windows while  Elias has talked about building a perennial contender.

What’s the difference from a practical perspective?  From a transactional/trade perspective?  Org build perspective?  Do FA signings look different?  Does opportunity for prospects differ?

Can a small/mid-market team (i.e. long term budget constraints) like the O’s compete on a regular basis with how the CBA is designed?

Well Tampa does. Cle routinely contends.  Oakland normally is right there. And the Os can spend more than they do.

And the difference is when you are in a window, you may choose to be more aggressive in how you build your team knowing that the window is set to close soon.

Edited November 27, 2022 by Sports Guy

[MarCakes21]

50 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well Tampa does. Cle routinely contends.  Oakland normally is right there. And the Os can spend more than they do.

And the difference is when you are in a window, you may choose to be more aggressive in how you build your team knowing that the window is set to close soon.

I asked this similarly and different in another thread. Oak and TB win with a lot of 2-3 win players, yes there’s always a Franco, but they’re competitive even without. I think that’s a model, but our model and therefore competitive window banks more on the 5-7 WAR of Gunnar/adley/grod and letting guys like Mullins walk after their arb years.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, MarCakes21 said:

I asked this similarly and different in another thread. Oak and TB win with a lot of 2-3 win players, yes there’s always a Franco, but they’re competitive even without. I think that’s a model, but our model and therefore competitive window banks more on the 5-7 WAR of Gunnar/adley/grod and letting guys like Mullins walk after their arb years.

People need to get it into their heads that most pro athletes, regardless of the sport, are not worth their second contract.  To stay competitive, the Os can’t pay dumb money to players who are going to be on the decline of their career.

[MarCakes21]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

People need to get it into their heads that most pro athletes, regardless of the sport, are not worth their second contract.  To stay competitive, the Os can’t pay dumb money to players who are going to be on the decline of their career.

I agree but there’s a difference between not worth it and elite and not worth it and mediocre. Ie scherzer is elite. Is he worth 40 mil? Maybe not but that’s elite.

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

People need to get it into their heads that most pro athletes, regardless of the sport, are not worth their second contract.  To stay competitive, the Os can’t pay dumb money to players who are going to be on the decline of their career.

When you say their second contract, what do you mean?

[Jim'sKid26]

The ability to acquire and develop young talent is the most critical process any MLB team possesses. That means talent from any source available. They need to draft well, create a major presence in the international market and make prudent trades. That is how you become a perennial contender. I would also state that carefully crafted contracts to lock down elite young talent (a la Atlanta Braves) also helps with cost containment.

For perennial contenders, windows open more frequently. When a window opens, a timely FA signing or a trade for a superstar is the final move to put a team in the best position to win the big prize. Houston did this with Verlander and Garrett Cole. It helps if you have prospects to trade as the cost of a superstar is ridiculous on the free agent market. 

So you build a talent pipeline to fuel your team and your ability to acquire difference makers via trade. Signing free agents is the coup de grace. Others may see it differently, but that's my take on talent acquisition.

[oriole]

13 minutes ago, Jim'sKid26 said:

The ability to acquire and develop young talent is the most critical process any MLB team possesses. That means talent from any source available. They need to draft well, create a major presence in the international market and make prudent trades. That is how you become a perennial contender. I would also state that carefully crafted contracts to lock down elite young talent (a la Atlanta Braves) also helps with cost containment.

For perennial contenders, windows open more frequently. When a window opens, a timely FA signing or a trade for a superstar is the final move to put a team in the best position to win the big prize. Houston did this with Verlander and Garrett Cole. It helps if you have prospects to trade as the cost of a superstar is ridiculous on the free agent market. 

So you build a talent pipeline to fuel your team and your ability to acquire difference makers via trade. Signing free agents is the coup de grace. Others may see it differently, but that's my take on talent acquisition.

Exactly this. It’s seems a little counter intuitive but to be a perennial contender then free agency is a supplemental resource. If you’re depending on free agency to build your team, not gonna end well if you’re not a financial behemoth.

 

Also, it’s worth noting that Elias has been a beast at waiver claims. A good portion of success is due to good bullpen pick ups plus Mateo and Urias. I don’t know if Elias has been lucky, is good at recognizing potential, or knows how to develop players well but if he can continue that trend then you could have a whole other way of acquiring talent that doesn’t break the bank or the farm. Obviously you don’t want to depend on that…but let’s say Urias and/or Mateo are eventually traded for a decent mid-tier prospect then there’s depth being made from thin air. Especially if you’re trading them since you have guys coming up to take their spots. 
 

Perennial contender would be nice but if this ends up being a solid 5-6 competitive window where they’re legitimately in it every year then I wouldn’t be too upset with that.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

When you say their second contract, what do you mean?

In baseball terms, that would mean once they are through arbitration..ie, start of free agency.  Some aren’t even worth the arb numbers but i personally define it as the free agency years.

[btdart20]

The competitive window mentality seems to assume a few years of trying to compete around a core of young players by spending on vets and mortgaging future years of competitiveness by trading away prospects.  Then a few years of losing and trading away ML players as we build a pipeline again.  That strategy doesn’t sound like a perennial contender.  This seems to be what Oakland does.  And what we’ve done.  Nats…

I like the conveyer belt/dealing from the top image, but it’s incomplete in that it focuses on only bringing in prospect talent.

I like the investment portfolio analogy best.  Each investment has a purpose built around risk (beta) and value add compared to the market (alpha).  Prospects carry high beta/risk but they also can add value quickly.  Teams that can assess when a player has reached maximum value best will likely have more talent in the organization.  Houston, LAD, and Tampa do this well.  SFG seem to get max value out of various players.

Atlanta, Cleveland, and lately Seattle have added a variant (pre-arb extensions, pitcher target/development) to trying to build perennial contenders.

These teams aren’t counting on windows.  They are building with an unlimited time horizon.  An ongoing concern to continue the business jargon.

 

[SteveA]

A lot of the success of the "conveyor belt" of talent being able to sustain competition longer than a finite window will depend on how well we do with international free agents.   Because this current surge to competitiveness comes on the shoulders of guys drafted when we were drafting very high every year, and that won't be happening in the future.

And of course it's way too early to judge how we are doing in regard to getting value out of the international market.

Just gonna have to wait and see on that.

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, SteveA said:

A lot of the success of the "conveyor belt" of talent being able to sustain competition longer than a finite window will depend on how well we do with international free agents.   Because this current surge to competitiveness comes on the shoulders of guys drafted when we were drafting very high every year, and that won't be happening in the future.

And of course it's way too early to judge how we are doing in regard to getting value out of the international market.

Just gonna have to wait and see on that.

I have a lot of confidence in Elias & co’s ability to find very good talent later in the first round than they’ve been drafting.   

[OriolesMagic83]

20 hours ago, MarCakes21 said:

I asked this similarly and different in another thread. Oak and TB win with a lot of 2-3 win players, yes there’s always a Franco, but they’re competitive even without. I think that’s a model, but our model and therefore competitive window banks more on the 5-7 WAR of Gunnar/adley/grod and letting guys like Mullins walk after their arb years.

I think part of being a perennial contender for a team with limited revenue like the O's is trading players like Mullins before they become free agents.  It will definitely cause some short term pain/unhappiness, but I think most of us would prefer that approach to having to go through another 2018-2021 stretch.

[Aristotelian]

They aren't mutually exclusive. Houston and St. Louis are good models. Start with a pipeline of talent and supplement with modest spending on free agents.

[Frobby]

4 hours ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

I think part of being a perennial contender for a team with limited revenue like the O's is trading players like Mullins before they become free agents.  It will definitely cause some short term pain/unhappiness, but I think most of us would prefer that approach to having to go through another 2018-2021 stretch.

I think almost everyone here is on board with the idea that we will need to trade some players before free agency rather than just holding them for six years or extending them.  It’s a matter of who and when.  In the ideal world, we’re trading guys away when we have some other highly regarded player ready to replace them, rather than trading someone away and leaving a big gap.  And, it requires a pretty good ability to judge the ability and readiness of your own minor league talent.