The warning signs are there for the reading

[HakunaSakata]

10 minutes ago, owknows said:

I'd find it at least as likely that Elias didn't see a whole lot of FA's up to and including the winter meetings that he thought were a good fit, and worth the asking price. I suspect he made what he thought were fair offers for the talent of interest, and got outspent by teams that were willing to overspend.

And he wasn't (willing to overspend)

I personally have no problem with this... as I see at least as much talent graduating from the farm which would be impeded by expensive signings.

 

This is an absolutely ridiculous nonsensical take. The majority of their high end prospects are position players. To think that signing one pitcher to a three year deal would potentially block a player they don't have is a ridiculous excuse to make for a team that has run out of benefits of the doubt. 

Also, he wouldn't have been overspending, he would have been spending what the market dictates. I mean, if you need to get to / from work each day and your car breaks down would you just not buy a new one because you think the price is too much? 

[owknows]

1 minute ago, Too Tall said:

My oh my - the sky is falling. For once in a long time, I like this team. Ownership be damned. I like following the young players we have and root for their growth. I've reconciled myself/learned to not get cought up in FA pluses and minuses. Keeps my blood pressure more under control. Whatever happens going forward, I still think we have a young team that will compete and make some noise.  I am going to judge the Orioles in 2023 by the level of improvement they make on the field not the size of their payroll.

(that's me in the background making a subtle fistpump and saying "YES!")

[owknows]

Just now, HakunaSakata said:

This is an absolutely ridiculous nonsensical take. The majority of their high end prospects are position players. To think that signing one pitcher to a three year deal would potentially block a player they don't have is a ridiculous excuse to make for a team that has run out of benefits of the doubt.

The Orioles have drafted heavily of position players. They have done so strategically in my opinion. Largely because the odds of a position player (particularly a middle infielder) making it to the major leagues is greater than the odds of a starting pitcher making it. And so accumulating value for trade is best accomplished by cornering the market on Shortstops, developing as many as you can, knowing that the rest can either be redeployed to 2B, 3B, or traded for pitching.

My point about blocking players though was neither ridiculous, nor was it nonsensical.

Likely half the "sign this player" discussions that took place in the FA threads involved either Correa, or a host of 1B and 3B options, many of whom would have blocked players coming up through the system.

And I'd suggest that most of the discussions of pitching involved players that won't be as good as our best 5  by midyear.

And in closing, maybe you ought to consider a little less caffeine or maybe a little more dietary fiber. It might help you keep your intentionally obnoxious side in check, and allow for more discussion, and fewer angry declarations like "absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical". Just a thought.

 

[Sports Guy]

We should be doing what Houston does. It’s the best way to build a team.

[owknows]

12 minutes ago, HakunaSakata said:

 

Also, he wouldn't have been overspending, he would have been spending what the market dictates. I mean, if you need to get to / from work each day and your car breaks down would you just not buy a new one because you think the price is too much? 

The market for trucks (both new and used) over the last year has been insanely inflated. It is only now beginning to calm down.

I wanted a truck. But decided not to purchase one because the prices were in my opinion inflated.

I think I made the right decision.

You want to buy at the peak of the market because that's what the market price is at that moment? Be my guest. Some of us prefer to watch for a bit.

[Tony-OH]

12 minutes ago, Too Tall said:

My oh my - the sky is falling. For once in a long time, I like this team. Ownership be damned. I like following the young players we have and root for their growth. I've reconciled myself/learned to not get cought up in FA pluses and minuses. Keeps my blood pressure more under control. Whatever happens going forward, I still think we have a young team that will compete and make some noise.  I am going to judge the Orioles in 2023 by the level of improvement they make on the field not the size of their payroll.

 

10 minutes ago, owknows said:

(that's me in the background making a subtle fistpump and saying "YES!")

You two do realize that every good young team needs to be offset by talent the organization doesn't have, and that's good starting pitching that can compete with the best.

While it's certainly easy to just say, "sit back and enjoy the ride," when that ride hits its bumps with young players, and it will, you want some good professional talent to offset that.

This team went into this offseason needing a TOR, a solid major league starter that can eat innings and a middle of the order bat.

They traded Lyles for Gibson while every other team in the AL East have added impact talent.

The off season is not over, and I'm not saying "woe is us, yet" but you have to be honest, while the Orioles can expect some improvements from Adley and a whole season of Gunnar, they have not improved in any significant way while their direct competition has.

It's not over yet, but they are behind, and it seems like a lot of yellow flags that ownership does not plan to increase the payroll significantly. You can be ok with that, and that's ok, but don't try and act like those of us who do see the signs are silly for seeing them.

 

[Tony-OH]

6 minutes ago, owknows said:

The Orioles have drafted heavily of position players. They have done so strategically in my opinion. Largely because the odds of a position player (particularly a middle infielder) making it to the major leagues is greater than the odds of a starting pitcher making it. And so accumulating value for trade is best accomplished by cornering the market on Shortstops, developing as many as you can, knowing that the rest can either be redeployed to 2B, 3B, or traded for pitching.

My point about blocking players though was neither ridiculous, nor was it nonsensical.

Likely half the "sign this player" discussions that took place in the FA threads involved either Correa, or a host of 1B and 3B options, many of whom would have blocked players coming up through the system.

And I'd suggest that most of the discussions of pitching involved players that won't be as good as our best 5  by midyear.

And in closing, maybe you ought to consider a little less caffeine or maybe a little more dietary fiber. It might help you keep your intentionally obnoxious side in check, and allow for more discussion, and fewer angry declarations like "absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical". Just a thought.

 

Anyone calling for us to sign a 3B or SS does not understand current options, but 1B, I'd be ok with a big left-handed hitting middle of the order hitter. Mountcastle could then be used for trade bait.

[owknows]

1 minute ago, Tony-OH said:

 

You two do realize that every good young team needs to be offset by talent the organization doesn't have, and that's good starting pitching that can compete with the best.

 

I believe that Kremer, Wells, Gibson, Bradish, and Rodriguez aren't too shabby.

And to the degree that you might want to supplement them, I believe that trade route is the more effective tool. Particularly given our emerging logjam of middle infield talent.

The reality of MLB today, is that not all teams can go toe-to-toe with the top teams on the left and right coast when it comes to free agent spending. I think its perfectly reasonable and perfectly sustainable to employ the trade as a substitute vehicle.

[owknows]

5 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Anyone calling for us to sign a 3B or SS does not understand current options, but 1B, I'd be ok with a big left-handed hitting middle of the order hitter. Mountcastle could then be used for trade bait.

Can't say I disagree on middle infield. And in the case of improving 1B, I think you'll get more value return by trading rather than opening your checkbook.

[deward]

14 minutes ago, owknows said:

And I'd suggest that most of the discussions of pitching involved players that won't be as good as our best 5  by midyear.

Which five starters do the O's have that will be better next year than Bassitt, Rodon, or Verlander? I expect significant regression from most of the O's current rotation in 2023.

The biggest problem with your plan, as I've debated with you before, is that it requires perfection. Elias can never make a mistake. Every trade has to work. Every prospect has to pan out. It's a constant threading of a tiny needle that will never actually be sustainable under real-world conditions. Even the Rays have been forced to endure down periods when the farm didn't come through. I prefer the team to keep all of its options open, depending on what the current circumstances require, rather than dogmatically cutting themselves off from avenues of improvement.

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, owknows said:

I believe that Kremer, Wells, Gibson, Bradish, and Rodriguez aren't too shabby.

And to the degree that you might want to supplement them, I believe that trade route is the more effective tool. Particularly given our emerging logjam of middle infield talent.

The reality of MLB today, is that not all teams can go toe-to-toe with the top teams on the left and right coast when it comes to free agent spending. I think its perfectly reasonable and perfectly sustainable to employ the trade as a substitute vehicle.

I think you are too much overboard with this.  You absolutely have to spend and supplement the roster. Now, I agree you don’t need to sign huge long term deals but trading for salary and taking on 3 year or less FA deals is a good way to go about it.

[Es4M11]

44 minutes ago, owknows said:

I'd find it at least as likely that Elias didn't see a whole lot of FA's up to and including the winter meetings that he thought were a good fit, and worth the asking price. I suspect he made what he thought were fair offers for the talent of interest, and got outspent by teams that were willing to overspend.

And he wasn't (willing to overspend)

I personally have no problem with this... as I see at least as much talent graduating from the farm which would be impeded by expensive signings.

 

There's no indication this is true at this time. Maybe it did happen, perhaps it didn't. We won't know unfortunately. One thing is for sure, as far as I am concerned the Orioles do not get the benefit of the doubt with an Angelos family member running the show.

[wildcard]

26 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

 

You two do realize that every good young team needs to be offset by talent the organization doesn't have, and that's good starting pitching that can compete with the best.

While it's certainly easy to just say, "sit back and enjoy the ride," when that ride hits its bumps with young players, and it will, you want some good professional talent to offset that.

This team went into this offseason needing a TOR, a solid major league starter that can eat innings and a middle of the order bat.

They traded Lyles for Gibson while every other team in the AL East have added impact talent.

The off season is not over, and I'm not saying "woe is us, yet" but you have to be honest, while the Orioles can expect some improvements from Adley and a whole season of Gunnar, they have not improved in any significant way while their direct competition has.

It's not over yet, but they are behind, and it seems like a lot of yellow flags that ownership does not plan to increase the payroll significantly. You can be ok with that, and that's ok, but don't try and act like those of us who do see the signs are silly for seeing them.

 

I would not say anybody is silly on this issue but I would like to point out this:

I am trying to cut and paste who each team in the division lost this off season.  But am have trouble with that.  I will just say many of the team have lost more  than the O's.

Free agents lost:

Yankees :, Andrew Benintendi, Matt Carpenter, Jameson Taillon, Chad Green, Miguel Castro, Marwin Gonzalez, Zack Britton, Aroldis Chapman

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by wildcard

[Tony-OH]

1 minute ago, owknows said:

I believe that Kremer, Wells, Gibson, Bradish, and Rodriguez aren't too shabby.

And to the degree that you might want to supplement them, I believe that trade route is the more effective tool. Particularly given our emerging logjam of middle infield talent.

The reality of MLB today, is that not all teams can go toe-to-toe with the top teams on the left and right coast when it comes to free agent spending. I think its perfectly reasonable and perfectly sustainable to employ the trade as a substitute vehicle.

The problem is the Orioles are not even trying to go toe to toe. More like toe to hang nail.

At some point ownership has to support the product that Elias has built from within.

As for your rotation, you have to remember that both Rodriguez and Wells will have innings limits placed on them. Even if you assume they all equal their performances or improve and you have no injuries, this is still a team that finished 4th last year and has not improved on paper very much while the others have.

 

[Tony-OH]

5 minutes ago, owknows said:

Can't say I disagree on middle infield. And in the case of improving 1B, I think you'll get more value return by trading rather than opening your checkbook.

Perhaps. I never said they must sign that guy, but I am worried that Elias won't be allowed to trade for that guy either because of the contract.