Evolving strategy re: free agent pitchers

[SemperFi]

Hi-I am new to the board but I have enjoyed the site and the insight it has brought me joy for a number of years.  I played HS ball in PG county in the late 70's and for a year in college-back when speed and contact were more a focus.  I coached travel ball for years and was fortunate to have a few kids make the minors and had the joy of watching one kid (Max Meyer) make the majors in Miami.  I am a diehard Orioles fan, probably watching an average of 120 games a year.  I had the fortune of working at a high level in auto racing and the periphery of baseball and hockey.  When I retired I was able to work for the Orioles in a game day position in spring training and the FGCL (now I think the FCL)-more on this below.

To my topic-I wanted to start a discussion on the changing dimensions in left field and the attempt to attract free agent arms.  Although you are likely familiar with the stated strategy I'll provide the quote:  Elias said. “It’s not a secret. It has been the case for decades and part of having a winning program is the ability to recruit free-agent pitchers, and that has been a historical challenge for this franchise. There is just no way around that.”

If that was the strategy a year ago what does that tell us about this offseason?  I believe given the last four

years of drafts the strategy was draft and develop position players and buy the arms-that seems to have changed and I am confused going forward.  There are obviously budget constraints but I believe Elias and staff had a good idea what the market would be  (salary but maybe not years)-he is well respected in baseball, has good bright people around him and is well thought of by agents (I have a friend whose son works for Boras).  We all know that under current ownership and past management Baltimore was not the most desirable place to play (or live) for a number of reasons.  Elias has taken steps to address a number of those concerns but I believe free agents and younger players that we want to extend may still be skeptical-specifically about ownership and commitment to winning.  It is a "red flag" to me that strategy changed so abruptly, please help me out with your thoughts.

I hope you find the following insights from my past experience interesting:

-while working for the Orioles there was a huge cultural change under Elias.  IMO under Duquette's tenure player development was so far behind the other teams I saw.  The O's had retreads like Milt May in his 60's coaching and little Spanish speaking staff, every other team had much larger, younger and more engaged coaching.  Analytics were non existent.  A prime example was the development plan for Ryan Mountcastle, he was tried a SS and third even though it was evident even to me his arm and footwork were subpar, he should have been pushed to a corner OF spot right away.

-there was a huge disconnect between game day experience (which was better than other spring venues) and development spending.  Could never figure out why.

-my owner in racing was (a that time) a minority owner for a small market baseball team.  He later sold his position but told me that baseball was a different  animal, that it was essentially controlled by the large market teams and that was not going to change.  Baseball's strategy then was to protect those markets at all costs.  He also noted that Angelos was not well liked by other owners due to his profession and politics (union support and he was new money).  He felt that among other reasons that was why Washington got a franchise under the terms they did-IMO the Nationals had a huge impact on the Orioles bottom line-not just fans/tv but I watched a large portion of corporate spending go their way.

-having worked in and around a number of sports in my experience baseball players were the biggest pain to work with, the sense of entitlement wasn't evident in other other athletes (admittedly a broad stoke and I had no experience with football players).

Sorry to be long winded but I hope you find the topic stimulating and not redundant.  I also hope you enjoy my notes-please be kind I am old but new!!

[SteveA]

Wow, welcome!   A lot of good stuff to digest and discuss there.

Yep, a lot of us are alarmed because there were so many things that pointed to the team probably spending to bring in some quality major league pitching this year.   (When I say spend i mean either money or trading assets, and while the door is pretty much shut on the spending part, it is not YET shut on the trading part, though we hear very few rumors of any trade talks.

But the hitter heavy drafts, the specific claim that the wall would help us attract pitchers, the expectation that we would raise our payroll significantly, the fact that our major league team had more need for starting pitching than for relievers or position players at most positions -- ALL pointed to an expectation that we would spend to bring in quality pitching this year.   And so far we have done nothing but swap Lyles for Gibson, basically a lateral move at best.

It is a huge concern, IMO.   Elias bought a lot of good will with the fan base last year just because he put together an 83 win team that no on expected.   But that good will is dissipating rapidly when we see an offseason that, SO FAR, is very similar to the ones we have had in years when we had no illusions of contending.

[interloper]

Interesting insight, thanks for sharing!

[Too Tall]

You put in dissertation form why I don't let this off season - or any under current ownership - get to me - too much. Been down this road too many times before. I just hope that the end result this year is not that we lose Elias & Co. If, what is going on is because the "rug" has been pulled out from under past promises to the operational team, we could be really experiencing a dark cold winter of discontent - on all fronts. Thanks for sharing and keep posting. Insight off valid experience is priceless.

[Tony-OH]

Some really outstanding thoughts ad insights in your first post. Welcome and sorry for the delay in getting you approved.

There is little doubt Elias has changed the culture within the organization and that old school was mostly discarded for new school ways and thoughts.

I think we all see what he's done to help facilitate that change in how the organization is viewed across baseball, at least from a baseball operations standpoint.

He's at a crossroads though and going into uncharted areas when it comes to taking that team from "on the cusp" to becoming a true contender going into a season. 

His start through the free agency portion has been less than stellar which can be read in the other threads. Elias has to show he and his staff can identify major league talent that's affordable within his budget, but also what make sense with the talent that is major, or nearly major league ready.

While Elias has shown the ability to move players up to AAA pretty quickly, outside of the superstar prospects, he has shown much faith in the players he brought up through the system and went with old school guys like Odor, Chirinos and Aguilar when it was clear to most everyone else they were no longer major league quality players over young players like Stowers, Vavra and probably a handful of better backup catcher options through the season.

It's going to be interesting to see how Elias continues to operate and whether he has some aces up his sleeve trade wise, but for now, the early results of when to identify that your team is a contender and how to augment that has been a fail for him.

Saying that, he's still got time to learn and improve, but no one should give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows what he's doing at this stage because he's never done this before. 

Some guys are great at rebuilding systems and others can take that next step and augment that talent by identifying and acquiring impact players that make the team a true contender.

[Aristotelian]

I think the wall and other efforts to make Baltimore more attractive are part of a long term strategy. I wouldnt expect it to pay off overnight. For what it's worth, those were the exact factors Gibson stated when they announced his signing so it is arguably working, albeit slowly.

[deward]

6 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

I think the wall and other efforts to make Baltimore more attractive are part of a long term strategy. I wouldnt expect it to pay off overnight. For what it's worth, those were the exact factors Gibson stated when they announced his signing so it is arguably working, albeit slowly.

To the best of my knowledge, the O's offer to Gibson was also the best one on the table (factoring in Canadian taxes), so hard to say if any other factors really mattered, or if that was just Gibson being polite at the press conference. If Gibson level pitchers looking to salvage something after a bad year are the only type the wall really attracts, then I'm not calling that a win.

[Aristotelian]

3 minutes ago, deward said:

To the best of my knowledge, the O's offer to Gibson was also the best one on the table (factoring in Canadian taxes), so hard to say if any other factors really mattered, or if that was just Gibson being polite at the press conference. If Gibson level pitchers looking to salvage something after a bad year are the only type the wall really attracts, then I'm not calling that a win.

As I said, it's a long term plan. Obviously it has not been fully successful yet. 

[Number5]

1 hour ago, deward said:

To the best of my knowledge, the O's offer to Gibson was also the best one on the table (factoring in Canadian taxes), so hard to say if any other factors really mattered

Canadians pay more taxes than we do?  I guess that makes sense - 9 months of snow removal must cost a lot, eh?