If Elias does very little at the deadline...

[emmett16]

10 hours ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

You mean like the O's fixed Hall and GrayRod and Voth.  Gee, let's just get other team's failed prospects and underperforming pitchers and work our magic.  It'll be like the O's 60's/70's pitching but better.

The FO didn’t hand pick Hall or GRod(not sure how either count as a “failed prospect”).  I’d say they knocked it out of the park with Bradish, Wells, Bautista, and Cano.  I think this FO has earned the benefit of the doubt at this point.  
 

I remember around this time last year when we had 5 top 100 prospects and Gunnar and Adley were about to lose prospect status and folks were claiming it was all about the tank and first round picks.  We have 8 now. 

[emmett16]

23 hours ago, Greg Pappas said:

At the deadline last year Elias dealt Lopez and Mancini in moves that look quite shrewd in retrospect. Thus far this season he's added a promising reliever in Fujinami., who was an under-the-radar guy with a big arm and control issues.  He may fizzle out or cement himself as a vital piece to the pen.  The results have been mixed, but he looks like he could work out well.

Yet, what if Elias does very little before Tuesday's deadline, such as acquiring a solid reliever for a prospect or two that isn't currently rated a blue-chipper, but nothing else?  Would you be upset or assume he did his best but the cost was too high?

I expect them to do relatively very little at the deadline. Hope I’m wrong. 

[Bemorewins]

After reading this board the last couple of days as the deadline nears, it seems that most posters here have resigned themselves to the likelihood that the O’s won’t do much at the deadline. I surmise that there are many who would like to be wrong, but want to protect themselves from disappointment (like this past offseason).

It seems many welcome the risk adverse/cautious/financially frugal approach for various reasons. One of the things that I read repeated over and over is how (regardless of quality of player added) “it’s too much/too high a price to pay”. It seems that many do not want to move any good/decent prospects (those who would be really valued by other teams i.e. - top 100 guys). 

My opinion is that whatever Elias/Sig decide to do or not do, they should be judged based on the results. So far, this season they have made almost all the right moves.

However, if things change and we do not finish the regular season well (unlikely IMO) or we get to the postseason and flop or we make a deep run, IMO it would be prudent at that time to make a proper evaluation. 

Until then I guess we will all just have to wait and see how this shakes out (regardless or who we add or don’t add). As in almost all things in life, time will tell who’s right and who’s not.

[FlipTheBird]

1 hour ago, Bemorewins said:

After reading this board the last couple of days as the deadline nears, it seems that most posters here have resigned themselves to the likelihood that the O’s won’t do much at the deadline. I surmise that there are many who would like to be wrong, but want to protect themselves from disappointment (like this past offseason).

It seems many welcome the risk adverse/cautious/financially frugal approach for various reasons. One of the things that I read repeated over and over is how (regardless of quality of player added) “it’s too much/too high a price to pay”. It seems that many do not want to move any good/decent prospects (those who would be really valued by other teams i.e. - top 100 guys). 

My opinion is that whatever Elias/Sig decide to do or not do, they should be judged based on the results. So far, this season they have made almost all the right moves.

However, if things change and we do not finish the regular season well (unlikely IMO) or we get to the postseason and flop or we make a deep run, IMO it would be prudent at that time to make a proper evaluation. 

Until then I guess we will all just have to wait and see how this shakes out (regardless or who we add or don’t add). As in almost all things in life, time will tell who’s right and who’s not.

How you evaluate the FO at the end of the year has to be a bit more nuanced than that, though. They could have acquired Ohtani, Giolito and Robertson and still gotten swept in the first round. They could acquire no one and make a run. Or a Vice versa. There’s too much randomness factor in the playoffs to judge a front office’s moves or non-moves that way.

[Bemorewins]

25 minutes ago, FlipTheBird said:

How you evaluate the FO at the end of the year has to be a bit more nuanced than that, though. They could have acquired Ohtani, Giolito and Robertson and still gotten swept in the first round. They could acquire no one and make a run. Or a Vice versa. There’s too much randomness factor in the playoffs to judge a front office’s moves or non-moves that way.

That’s where we differ. You can choose to evaluate using a what if scenario/benefit of the doubt criteria. But I doubt believe that’s how pro sports/baseball should be viewed. It’s a bottom line business for players and the same standard should apply for execs.

IMO Elias/Sig should only be evaluated based upon the decisions that they make or don’t make. They cannot make the plays for the players, all they can do is put together the best roster that they can.

If they make acquisitions as you suggest and that doesn’t work out, that’s on those players or the manager if he makes a bad decision. 

However, if they don’t make acquisitions they should be evaluated by that decision as well. If it works out, they should be given praise. If it does not, they should receive criticism. 

Anything else in terms of “what ifs” is excuse making.

[Just Regular]

I believe Elias could end up doing a good deal, but I do believe basic market dynamics anything closing this weekend is Buyer stretching to meet Seller's ask, and that would be a big practice change for this regime.

Last 1-2 days it is clarifying that LAA is in, NYM is out.      What about CHC and SD?

If Elias has an intent to use one of Westburg/Ortiz and one of McDermott/Povich and knows this hour he can get Jordan Montgomery and Jordan Hicks for that, but thinks he might be able to get Blake Snell and Josh Hader for that, what message is he conveying to Mozeliak tonight?

 

[btdart20]

40 minutes ago, Just Regular said:

I believe Elias could end up doing a good deal, but I do believe basic market dynamics anything closing this weekend is Buyer stretching to meet Seller's ask, and that would be a big practice change for this regime.

Last 1-2 days it is clarifying that LAA is in, NYM is out.      What about CHC and SD?

If Elias has an intent to use one of Westburg/Ortiz and one of McDermott/Povich and knows this hour he can get Jordan Montgomery and Jordan Hicks for that, but thinks he might be able to get Blake Snell and Josh Hader for that, what message is he conveying to Mozeliak tonight?

 

I was expecting a Just Regularese quip to summarize it all like:  A bird in the hand, two in the bush, or Schrodinger's cat in a box.

[FlipTheBird]

1 hour ago, Bemorewins said:

That’s where we differ. You can choose to evaluate using a what if scenario/benefit of the doubt criteria. But I doubt believe that’s how pro sports/baseball should be viewed. It’s a bottom line business for players and the same standard should apply for execs.

IMO Elias/Sig should only be evaluated based upon the decisions that they make or don’t make. They cannot make the plays for the players, all they can do is put together the best roster that they can.

If they make acquisitions as you suggest and that doesn’t work out, that’s on those players or the manager if he makes a bad decision. 

However, if they don’t make acquisitions they should be evaluated by that decision as well. If it works out, they should be given praise. If it does not, they should receive criticism. 

Anything else in terms of “what ifs” is excuse making.

So you're saying if they make moves and it doesn't work, they get a free pass...but if they don't make moves and it doesn't work, it's their fault?