Adding quality players

[Jim'sKid26]

19 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I suspect that the same people who design the shifts based on the batted ball data available to them have a pretty good idea what the impact will be.  I don’t think the publicly available data tells you a lot.   

This introduces another variable into the equation: does undoing what has been done have an equal negative impact? Good point.

[wildcard]

6 minutes ago, Jim'sKid26 said:

I'm sorry. I'm aware that civility is frequently frowned upon by some here. It's just how I'm wired. 

No problem with your civility.   We all know Frobby is one of the very best posters on the OH and has been for a long time.  Its just we can't tell him that.   Its may lead to criminal reactions.

[forphase1]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

Nothing wrong with having a veteran presence on a team.  But how about some veterans who are also top-level players?   Are they disqualified from dispensing veteranosity?

Exactly.   I'm not anti-vets.  I'm anti BAD vets whose only real 'benefit' to the team is having mlb experience.  I didn't dislike Chirinos, Odor and Aguilar last year because they had been playing for a while,  I disliked them because they sucked and if I'm going to see poor production I'd rather see it from the kids who have a chance to improve versus a washed up long in the tooth vet.  The whole veteran presence is badly overrated around here at times.   Sure, if you've got 2 equally performing players,  then experience or veteranosity can be used to help break that tie, but too often we have signed terrible players simply because they were good 5 years ago and then we rave about their intangibles...mainly because there is nothing good to say about them otherwise...

[deward]

1 hour ago, tntoriole said:

I guess that is why the team underperformed so badly last year.  All those bad moves Elias made. 

Given that Elias didn't intend to build a winning team in 2022, I don't know that he deserves credit for the team over-performing. I think the jury is still out on how good he'll prove to be at constructing a big league roster that can compete for titles. Not saying that he can't or won't, just that he hasn't proven it yet.

[tntoriole]

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

I don't think you can equate last off season to this off season.  The O's were not projected to be a contender last off season when Odor was signed.  This year they are expected to contend so Elias and Sig must see something in Frazier that makes them think they can turn him around.  The Frazier acquisition is that simple.  They would not spend 8m if they thought he was going to repeat last year's poor performance. But on a one year contract he is a trade chip if they turn him around.

I don't think Vavra is looked at as a starting infielder.  He is probably not a starting anything except maybe DH because of his arm and lack of power. 

The infield is probably Gunnar 3B/SS,   Mateo at SS but not full time if he does not hit, Urias 2B/3B but he had a 720 OPS last year so he is going to have to hit better to be a full time player.  

Westburg offers power and the ability to drive in runs which means he could DH some.   He has the build and probably has the defensive skill level to backup 1B.   He also has the speed to play the corner outfield.  So I would not limit him to just the infield.

Hyde loves to move players around so this group has versatility that I think he will  utilized.

Your reference to Phillips and Aguilar is not really relevant.   They traded Mancini at the deadline and needed to fill the roster spot cheaply.  That is why they were on the team.    There have been good discussion about whether Stowers or those two should have gotten the playing time  but there was a roster spot to fill and those two were available on the waiver wire.

Bottom line there is room on the team for Gunnar, Mateo, Frazier, Urias, and Westburg.   Only Gunnar plays full time.

I agree with this.  Now add in the usual but unexpected DL time or underperformance say of a rookie who has yet to take a big league at bat and what seems like a “logjam” becomes “barely enough”. 
 

And Frazier being able to spell or platoon at times with Santander in right and Hays in left could be valuable to our roster makeup for 2023.  There is a reason why Frazier was in demand at the trade deadline in 2021 by many contender GMs.  He doesn’t strike out, he plays the game hard-a BJ Surhoff intensity.  And the Seattle GM saw also all those advantages he brings plus a limited cost. 
 

And sometimes a 31 year old past AllStar on a one year deal after an off season has a lot of motivation to get another deal. 
 

I think we are all going to be much happier with Adam Frazier than some have been to date. 

[Frobby]

7 minutes ago, deward said:

Given that Elias didn't intend to build a winning team in 2022, I don't know that he deserves credit for the team over-performing. 

Regardless of what he expected for 2022, I still think he has to be credited to acquiring and developing the players who obtained the unexpectedly good results.   I agree with the rest of your post.  

[tntoriole]

7 minutes ago, deward said:

Given that Elias didn't intend to build a winning team in 2022, I don't know that he deserves credit for the team over-performing. I think the jury is still out on how good he'll prove to be at constructing a big league roster that can compete for titles. Not saying that he can't or won't, just that he hasn't proven it yet.

So who does deserve the credit?  Dan Duquette? Mike surely would have gotten the blame if they had won 40 games.  
I don’t view building a “winning team” as something that you do in isolation. 
Elias drafted and assembled the roster and it was better than expected.  Why no credit? 
The only obstacle to Mike’s success will be the same one that has been the obstacle for decades .. Angelos family ownership.  And yes they may prevent us from ever winning a championship. 

[deward]

45 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

So who does deserve the credit?  Dan Duquette? Mike surely would have gotten the blame if they had won 40 games.  
I don’t view building a “winning team” as something that you do in isolation. 
Elias drafted and assembled the roster and it was better than expected.  Why no credit? 
The only obstacle to Mike’s success will be the same one that has been the obstacle for decades .. Angelos family ownership.  And yes they may prevent us from ever winning a championship. 

The players, mostly. I guess partial credit for Elias would be appropriate, as he did acquire the players, as you say. I just have a hard time giving full credit to someone for accomplishing something they had no intention of accomplishing. Especially after he was so reluctant to support the success during the year.

[tntoriole]

36 minutes ago, deward said:

The players, mostly. I guess partial credit for Elias would be appropriate, as he did acquire the players, as you say. I just have a hard time giving full credit to someone for accomplishing something they had no intention of accomplishing. Especially after he was so reluctant to support the success during the year.

By “supporting the success” you mean making some big acquisition that you liked mid year ? To “improve” the team?  Sort of like the Astros getting Trey? Did that “improve” the team? Or the Twins getting Jorge Looez? 
 

If those two player performances had been the same as they did for their new teams and they were still on the 2022 squad would that have “improved “ or weakened the team? . 
 

It is unfair to suggest that Mike Elias and his entire team of leadership that he also has assembled was not more invested and involved in wanting the 2022 team to win as any of us. 

But he is a professional GM .. unlike you and me.  So not making a trade that doesn’t fit his process just to appease fans who will bash him for not “supporting” the team was the correct call imho 

[Aristotelian]

1 hour ago, deward said:

Given that Elias didn't intend to build a winning team in 2022, I don't know that he deserves credit for the team over-performing. I think the jury is still out on how good he'll prove to be at constructing a big league roster that can compete for titles. Not saying that he can't or won't, just that he hasn't proven it yet.

Unless he was trying to build a losing team he has to get credit for establishing the developmental pipeline that has resulted in winning games. The fact they won more than expected should be a good thing.

[owknows]

5 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

It is unfair to suggest that Mike Elias and his entire team of leadership that he also has assembled was not more invested and involved in wanting the 2022 team to win as any of us. 
 

I'm sure he wanted to win. He's been a pretty good GM. Amazing when it comes to the draft.

My criticism involves continuing to play Odor, and subsequently acquiring Aguilar and Phillips.

He had better options already on the team, and those were unnecessary acquisitions that actually hurt rather than helped the club (as they delayed the growth and evaluation of Stowers and Vavra.

 

[tntoriole]

2 hours ago, forphase1 said:

Exactly.   I'm not anti-vets.  I'm anti BAD vets whose only real 'benefit' to the team is having mlb experience.  I didn't dislike Chirinos, Odor and Aguilar last year because they had been playing for a while,  I disliked them because they sucked and if I'm going to see poor production I'd rather see it from the kids who have a chance to improve versus a washed up long in the tooth vet.  The whole veteran presence is badly overrated around here at times.   Sure, if you've got 2 equally performing players,  then experience or veteranosity can be used to help break that tie, but too often we have signed terrible players simply because they were good 5 years ago and then we rave about their intangibles...mainly because there is nothing good to say about them otherwise...

I don’t see any of the players  we signed are “terrible” nor are they “washed up, long in the tooth.”  
Adam Frazier is 31 and was an AllStar in 2021.  He may not perform again at that level but it is probably not due to age. 
I do agree that it all comes down to value and contribution not being a good presence or role model.  But I believe these guys will contribute in 2023 as does Mike. 
 

Now if they sign Rich Hill… lol 

[tntoriole]

8 minutes ago, owknows said:

I'm sure he wanted to win. He's been a pretty good GM. Amazing when it comes to the draft.

My criticism involves continuing to play Odor, and subsequently acquiring Aguilar and Phillips.

He had better options already on the team, and those were unnecessary acquisitions that actually hurt rather than helped the club (as they delayed the growth and evaluation of Stowers and Vavra.

 

How much did those acquisitions cost us? Yes they did not work out.  It happens.  How much did Elias obtain in the trades of Lopez and Mancini who then sucked for their teams? And how much bad performance did he save us from by sending them away? We can’t know. 
 

I am not so much a fan of the idea of the so called “stunted” growth of players.  There is something to be said for player development in having to overperform as prospects to beat out a veteran.  But Elias clearly has a plan that relies heavily on the success of his drafted prospects and so that plan probably does not involve harming their development. 

[connja]

7 hours ago, wildcard said:

Veteranosity.   The players Elias have added do not have star quality at this point in their careers,  but McCann, Frazier and Gibsons have all been All-Stars and been to the playoffs.  Givens has also been to the playoffs.  They have been through the ups and downs of a pennant drive which should help the O's team.

The other thing that caught my attention is that all 3 of these guys are known to be great clubhouse guys.   Elias definitely appreciates clubhouse chemestry.

[SemperFi]

18 minutes ago, owknows said:

I'm sure he wanted to win. He's been a pretty good GM. Amazing when it comes to the draft.

My criticism involves continuing to play Odor, and subsequently acquiring Aguilar and Phillips.

He had better options already on the team, and those were unnecessary acquisitions that actually hurt rather than helped the club (as they delayed the growth and evaluation of Stowers and Vavra.

 

I agree with you but wonder how much of the Stowers/Vavra/Odor is Hyde?  Not sure if you meant him as an extension of Elias.  I know the roster make up and general direction is Elias but would be curious how much autonomy Hyde has over playing time or what their relationship in determining that is.