Adding quality players

[owknows]

17 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

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 don't care what those acquisitions cost us in dollars.

My objection (as clearly stated) was that they impeded the development of players (Vavra and Stowers) who were already better than the players that were acquired.

As for the trade of Lopez and Mancini, those were great moves.

You seem to be unable to grasp the idea that criticism of PARTICULAR moves that Elias has made, is not the same as criticism of EVERY move that Elias has made.

On the whole, Elias has made many more good moves than bad ones.

[forphase1]

18 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

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 

For the most part I think we have done a better job this year of picking up vets that have a good chance of being at least average.  Again, my post was in reference to the Odor, Chirinos, Aguilar group who were terrible and washed up, long in the tooth.  I think Frazier is much better than Odor...still think it was a dumb signing as I'd rather seen us sign a real top end guy to man an infield spot OR leave it open to some of the kids to handle versus signing him.  As to Frazier being 31 and an Allstar in 2021, Odor was only 28 and was only a couple seasons away from a 30HR, 93 RBI season where his OPS was .721, and we know how that turned out.  

I'm MUCH happier having McCann as a backup over a Chirinos.  That was a solid move.  I think Frazier is a real upgrade over Odor, though I would not have signed him.  At least to this point I don't see a 'bring in a vet just because he's a vet' type signing, other than maybe Cordero, and it's a minor league deal, so I don't care.  But the offseason isn't over yet!  

[owknows]

7 minutes ago, SemperFi said:

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.  

I wondered about this myself, and my conclusion was the Hyde had very little organizational gravitas... and that even if those decisions were Hyde's, they could have been over-ridden by Elias.

[tntoriole]

1 hour ago, owknows said:

I don't care what those acquisitions cost us in dollars.

My objection (as clearly stated) was that they impeded the development of players (Vavra and Stowers) who were already better than the players that were acquired.

As for the trade of Lopez and Mancini, those were great moves.

You seem to be unable to grasp the idea that criticism of PARTICULAR moves that Elias has made, is not the same as criticism of EVERY move that Elias has made.

On the whole, Elias has made many more good moves than bad ones.

And you seem unable to grasp that I simoly disagree with your assessment of moves he has made. 

[tntoriole]

1 hour ago, forphase1 said:

For the most part I think we have done a better job this year of picking up vets that have a good chance of being at least average.  Again, my post was in reference to the Odor, Chirinos, Aguilar group who were terrible and washed up, long in the tooth.  I think Frazier is much better than Odor...still think it was a dumb signing as I'd rather seen us sign a real top end guy to man an infield spot OR leave it open to some of the kids to handle versus signing him.  As to Frazier being 31 and an Allstar in 2021, Odor was only 28 and was only a couple seasons away from a 30HR, 93 RBI season where his OPS was .721, and we know how that turned out.  

I'm MUCH happier having McCann as a backup over a Chirinos.  That was a solid move.  I think Frazier is a real upgrade over Odor, though I would not have signed him.  At least to this point I don't see a 'bring in a vet just because he's a vet' type signing, other than maybe Cordero, and it's a minor league deal, so I don't care.  But the offseason isn't over yet!  

I would have signed Frazier obviously because I believe he may well outperform his contract and that he will contribute more at 2b in early 2023 than any other current option. If Westburg proves me wrong then trade Frazier or move him to the outfield.. but I believe he will surprise those currently down on this signing. 
 

[owknows]

7 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

And you seem unable to grasp that I simoly disagree with your assessment of moves he has made. 

Then why are your arguments all rambling rants directed at points I did not make?

 

 

[tntoriole]

32 minutes ago, owknows said:

Then why are your arguments all rambling rants directed at points I did not make?

 

 

Thank you for the feedback. 

But all is good.. I will simply acknowledge our differences and wish you well for the season to come!! 

[Roll Tide]

14 hours ago, owknows said:

McCann, Gibson, Givens?  No Problem. They're not impeding anyone's progress.

Frazier was a bad move. Inserting a mediocre player into a middle infield at which we already have a logjam of existing and emerging talent is counter-productive. Even if we trade a middle infielder or two, we would STILL have a logjam.

See here’s the thing….They are if Hyde over uses them like he did Odor.

[deward]

7 hours ago, tntoriole said:

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 

What action of Elias suggests that he was invested in winning in 2022? He didn't believe in them and stuck to his pre-determined plan rather than make much effort to reinforce the success. Then he seemed to feel some of the backlash (likely from the team) and started fumbling around with weird, ineffective moves like calling up Hall and bringing in Aquilar. He's laid a good foundation for the team, but I really didn't care for how he handled 2022. If you did, that's fine, but arguments like "he's just smarter than us" (paraphrasing here) aren't going to make any ground with me. 

[tntoriole]

48 minutes ago, deward said:

What action of Elias suggests that he was invested in winning in 2022? He didn't believe in them and stuck to his pre-determined plan rather than make much effort to reinforce the success. Then he seemed to feel some of the backlash (likely from the team) and started fumbling around with weird, ineffective moves like calling up Hall and bringing in Aquilar. He's laid a good foundation for the team, but I really didn't care for how he handled 2022. If you did, that's fine, but arguments like "he's just smarter than us" (paraphrasing here) aren't going to make any ground with me. 

I was ecstatic about 2022 and support the decisions Elias made that have gotten us this far.  Second guessing is what being on this board is sbout, but the reality us that it is water under the bridge and you cannot know if the actions you wanted to see would have worked better or worse. 

[owknows]

2 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

See here’s the thing….They are if Hyde over uses them like he did Odor.

See here's the thing.....  Not sure Hyde was calling all the shots.

And whether he was or wasn't, what purpose did Aguilar and Phillips serve?

[Roll Tide]

7 hours ago, owknows said:

See here's the thing.....  Not sure Hyde was calling all the shots.

And whether he was or wasn't, what purpose did Aguilar and Phillips serve?

I think they hindered winning 

[Frobby]

On 12/24/2022 at 9:54 AM, Jim'sKid26 said:

The impact of banning the shift seems like a huge boogyman to some posters. The absence of data to estimate its impact has led to some fascinating speculation. I am intrigued by the certainty many folks have of how it will effect hitters and pitchers. I, personally have equipoise, but feel I might just be ignorant. Perhaps a few of you can educate me on the data supporting your opinion. 

Side note, please attempt to minimize the supposition, speculation and spitballing if possible. Thanks.

Here’s an interesting article today identifying Corey Seager as the most affected player in 2022, and estimating he lost 20 hits to the shift, worth 30 points of BA and 64 points of OPS to him.   Needless to say, most players won’t be that extreme.   https://www.mlb.com/news/how-corey-seager-can-benefit-from-new-shift-rules

[SteveA]

On 12/24/2022 at 7:44 AM, owknows said:

According to Baseball Reference, Veteranosity is inversely proportional to WAR

Yep, just like a catcher's defense is inversely proportional to his hitting ability.

Team signs a C who can't hit; ah they're bringing him in for his defense!

[Ohfan67]

On 12/24/2022 at 12:10 PM, owknows said:

I don't care what those acquisitions cost us in dollars.

My objection (as clearly stated) was that they impeded the development of players (Vavra and Stowers) who were already better than the players that were acquired.

 

I did not like these acquisitions either, but “impeded the development” is an overstatement. Aquilar played in 16 games with the Orioles and Phillips appeared in a whopping 8 games for the Orioles. Again, I didn’t like the acquisitions either, but those acquisitions meant very little if really anything in terms of the playing time for Vavra and Stowers. They were attempts at catching a little lightening in the bottle that failed like most of those attempts do.  The Orioles would have given most of those at bats to other players over Stowers and Vavra even without the acquisitions IMO.  The Orioles were definitely not trying to maximize at bats for those guys. 

Edited December 25, 2022 by Ohfan67