Roch talks winter meetings

[Tony-OH]

5 hours ago, Daddy-O's said:

This winter is beginning to feel like the same old thing.  Elias is the guy that added Phillips and Aguilar for a playoff run.

While some people will slam you, until he does something else, that is his current history for attempting to add to a marginal playoff team.

He also was pigheaded and forced Aguilar into the lineup over Stowers when it went against everything he's always stood for when it came to the future.

 

[Jammer7]

37 minutes ago, Jim'sKid26 said:

I have made a similar argument for Turner, if you look back on my previous posts. So I really can't disagree with you. I also enjoy your perspective and read your posts with great interest. Frequently learning something new and innovative. 

To do what you have outlined above would require a level of sequencing that is extremely hard to do. First you have to orchestrate the trade with Milwaukee. Then you have to sign Turner, then you have to orchestrate a trade with Miami. If any of those parts fails to go down you are a bit stuck. We can do it easily on this message board. It's another story to do it in a multi billion dollar industry. Cool idea, though.

I am very interested in how the 2023 infield shakes out. Might be a bit of a work in progress. There is real risk that this team regresses in 2023. As SG likes to point out, taking a lot of risks and having a lot of ?s can lead to a lot of disappointment. 

Thanks for the kind words. I enjoy your posts as well.

I agree, it’s an intricate undertaking. You’d have to have the framework of some deals in place to make it all work. You’d sign Turner, and then go forward with other things. The worst scenario would be Turner getting hurt, but with his track record, he’s a smart bet. Having him in pocket opens the door to the others, in my opinion. The infield depth becomes expendable at that point. 

Maybe some of your minor league players open in AAA, not ideal, but not a bad thing. For a while anyway. You make the deals that make sense, and they do fall apart far more than we know. I would love to get Burnes, but they apparently came out and said they’re holding onto him, for now. Maybe at the deadline. Makes little sense as teams generally get more in the Winter deals, but that’s the Brewers. 

Elias and crew are very capable front office people. They can prove it over the next few years. All GM’s think they’re the smartest people in any room, absolutely. It isn’t that they have to win trades. Both teams can win from them and it isn’t a bad thing. We would be re-allocating resources to places of need. The thing that bothers me about a deal like Lopez for Mullins is how long Lopez is under team control and will they get him to extend. I believe he has two remaining arb years. Mullins for him straight up would be great, but I doubt they do that. What else do you need to give up? If they want Bradish, for instance, fine. What are they sending back to balance that out some?

There is a hundred scenarios they could have unfold. It’s a lot of fun for us to speculate, but I have generally stayed out of these conversations on here because they are too time consuming for me. Fit and opportunity is what we don’t really know the whole story on. Pro scouting and probing other org coaching connections becomes vital. They do not need to bring in some talented guy, but he’s a turd in the clubhouse. 

[Jammer7]

32 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

While some people will slam you, until he does something else, that is his current history for attempting to add to a marginal playoff team.

He also was pigheaded and forced Aguilar into the lineup over Stowers when it went against everything he's always stood for when it came to the future.

 

The first part is certainly an understandable take. The second part has me curious, and maybe you have answered this elsewhere. But how do you know that? Did this come from a “source?” Or is it just your speculation? I would never want to “out” a source, and I know you would not do that. But that’s quite a statement.

I mean, it could be something Elias and Hyde agreed on. Maybe Hyde pushed for a veteran guy they thought might drive in some runs with a few adjustments. The offense was anemic and Mountcastle and Hays effectively stopped hitting since July. I wanted Stowers to play too, but perhaps they felt they needed match ups for him, or had him working certain things. To throw a rookie into a playoff run isn’t always advantageous. 

[DrinkinWithFermi]

5 hours ago, Daddy-O's said:

This winter is beginning to feel like the same old thing.  

People don't want to hear this but the fact that the first meaningful move we made was to rush out and tie up a 2023 rotation spot with another below average Lyles-type #5 starter is not terribly encouraging. I still expect more moves, including at least one or two fairly notable ones, but the overall trajectory of the offseason seems to be of a much lower arc than I had hoped after our 2022 breakout, and that is after I had started out with fairly measured expectations compared to many others around here.

5 hours ago, Frobby said:

Here’s the whole quote from Elias that Roch is paraphrasing:

“Our plan for this offseason has always been to significantly escalate the payroll,” GM Mike Elias said in an appearance on The Front Office Show on MLB Network Radio on Sirius XM.  “I think a lot of that’s going to come through our own guys going into arbitration, but also we plan to explore free agency much more aggressively.  We plan to maybe make some buy trades for some guys that are either on contracts or kind of in the tail-end of their arbitration.”

“The success…has only cemented those plans.  I’m really looking forward to the offseason and kind of a winter meetings environment where we’re buying.  I think it’s going to be a lot of fun for our group and for the organization.”

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/08/gm-mike-elias-orioles-will-significantly-escalate-the-payroll-during-offseason.html

So, interpret that as you will.   I certainly don’t take it to mean that the O’s are going to sit on their hands and treat this offseason like the last several.   Because that’s clearly not what he said.   

 

I am certainly not thrilled about the offseason so far but I do think some people are being a little too pessimistic about Mike's arbitration raise remark. To me, 25% of the payroll increase being tied to arbitration raises would be fully consistent with what he said and still leave plenty of room for a meaningful acquisition or two. The idea that he meant that, like, 75% of the increase would be from arb raises is hard to believe, because if so, he probably would not have made any comments about meaningful additions in the first place.

[dustinst22]

6 hours ago, Jim'sKid26 said:

 

I hope the recent statement by the Brewers that they are not trading Burnes is just pre-trade postering. He's the only realistic ToR starter I see the O's obtaining. It will require a ton of prospects but It makes the most sense, IMHO. The winter meeting are the time when these types of trades are structured. Im hoping for the best.

Burnes, is great, but only 2 years of control is tough to give up a lot for.  He will be unlikely to extend as Burnes easily commands Rodon type money in free agency.

If we're going to trade a lot of capital, would rather see us go after a pitcher more likely to get extended even if not as good as Burnes.  Or someone with longer control.

[Roll Tide]

2 hours ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

People don't want to hear this but the fact that the first meaningful move we made was to rush out and tie up a 2023 rotation spot with another below average Lyles-type #5 starter is not terribly encouraging. I still expect more moves, including at least one or two fairly notable ones, but the overall trajectory of the offseason seems to be of a much lower arc than I had hoped after our 2022 breakout, and that is after I had started out with fairly measured expectations compared to many others around here.

 

I am certainly not thrilled about the offseason so far but I do think some people are being a little too pessimistic about Mike's arbitration raise remark. To me, 25% of the payroll increase being tied to arbitration raises would be fully consistent with what he said and still leave plenty of room for a meaningful acquisition or two. The idea that he meant that, like, 75% of the increase would be from arb raises is hard to believe, because if so, he probably would not have made any comments about meaningful additions in the first place.

So you think “much” is 25%?

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

So you think “much” is 25%?

Can be.  Much of my budget is spent on my mortgage.  But it’s not the majority.  

Who the hell knows what Elias meant?  We’ll find out.  
 

[Roll Tide]

3 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

While some people will slam you, until he does something else, that is his current history for attempting to add to a marginal playoff team.

He also was pigheaded and forced Aguilar into the lineup over Stowers when it went against everything he's always stood for when it came to the future.

 

He said he is increasing the payroll significantly and in full go mode. If he doesn’t make a few meaningful moves he will have no credibility.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Roll Tide said:

He said he is increasing the payroll significantly and in full go mode. If he doesn’t make a few meaningful moves he will have no credibility.

I'm sure the media will press him on the issue if that comes to pass.

[Roll Tide]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

Can be.  Much of my budget is spent on my mortgage.  But it’s not the majority.  

Who the hell knows what Elias meant?  We’ll find out.  
 

I dunno, some seems like 25%, much imo is half-ish. Most would be 80% ish. 

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

I dunno, some seems like 25%, much imo is half-ish. Most would be 80% ish. 

In the poll we ran, 38% guessed the payroll would be $60-79 mm, 38% said $80-100.  So the median OH answer was right around $80 mm.  Last year’s was $48 mm.

[Roll Tide]

29 minutes ago, Frobby said:

In the poll we ran, 38% guessed the payroll would be $60-79 mm, 38% said $80-100.  So the median OH answer was right around $80 mm.  Last year’s was $48 mm.

To be effective it would need to 80-100. Possibly more

[Frobby]

50 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

To be effective it would need to 80-100. Possibly more

Hard to say.  Spending on the right players is more important than throwing lots of money at the wrong guys.  But I voted $80-100, so we’ll see.  

[Roll Tide]

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Hard to say.  Spending on the right players is more important than throwing lots of money at the wrong guys.  But I voted $80-100, so we’ll see.  

The right players are $18+ plus per.

[Frobby]

11 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

The right players are $18+ plus per.

Or, they could turn out to be very wrong.    I do agree that the impact FA pitchers will cost that much or more.  There may be some trade targets who won’t, at least in 2023.