Elias' mental shift

[Jim'sKid26]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

Elias was asked pretty much this exact question in his presser and flatly denied any change in his mindset.  He said everything he’s done the last 5 years has been for the purpose of improving the Orioles’ chances to win a World Series.   He said this move improves the team’s chances to win a World Series, and he still has a very healthy farm system, so he’s not sacrificing the future in order to improve the team now.   And he’s right.  

Obviously there’s a balance to acquiring short term assets to win now while preserving long term assets to continue winning in the future.  That equation is different at different times depending on the strength of the major league team and the farm system and the spots where there team does or doesn’t have depth.   Right now, we have a ton of long term assets banked, and an major league team that is capable of a deep playoff run, so Elias can afford to cash in some long term assets to improve the team’s chances right now.  
 

 

Well said, as always!

[24fps]

15 minutes ago, wildcard said:

This is the first year in Elias 5 years with the O's that he has traded high value prospects for a veteran.   That is a mental shift IMO.  And notable.  That is my I posted it.

I think it's just as easily explained as the culmination of a strategy that's been in place since day one.  It's certainly a refreshing new look, but I don't know why we need to paint it in psychological terms.

[wildbillhiccup]

5 hours ago, wildcard said:

I am pretty far away from thinking the Os are going to spend 250m to extend Burnes into his late 30s. I think he is more likely to extend young players like Gunnar and Holliday.

Love your "will be 26".   I will be 100 one day if I live that long.   Hall and Ortiz are both 25 and were projected to have spots on the 2024 26 man roster.   Who knows how the season would have progressed for them had they stayed.

I am not saying that Elias made the wrong move.   I am saying he has made a mental shift from collecting young talent and guarding all of them to focusing on what he needs to do win the World Series.

In the past Elias might have kept Hall and traded Ortiz if he was blocked for more young talent.   

 

Making a bad joke when someone brings up a completely valid point about a prospect's age shows a fundamental lack of understanding of a player's baseball age / shelf life compared to real life. You're also making a mountain out of a mole hill in turns of the Burnes trade. It's not a fundamental shift in anything other than Elias having to adapt to running a winning baseball team. This was inevitable, especially when it became very apparent that our hitting prospects were much further along than our pitching prospects. He did what he needed to do to close that gap and the success of the move has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not we extend Burnes. If we don't extend him then there will be a long list of FA SPs to choose from during the next off season (Cole, Wheeler, Ray, Fried, etc.).  Or if our MiLB pitching prospects really progress maybe we won't have to sign anyone at all. 

[interloper]

Maybe it's just me but I didn't read @wildcard's OP as being critical of the move. Just reads like he's coming to terms with the move and the transition into "win now".

[wildbillhiccup]

9 minutes ago, 24fps said:

I think it's just as easily explained as the culmination of a strategy that's been in place since day one.  It's certainly a refreshing new look, but I don't know why we need to paint it in psychological terms.

You nailed it. It's just the natural progression the comes with transitioning from running a rebuilding team to running a winning/contending team. And while Elias placed heavy emphasis on player development I don't think it was ever his plan to only rely on in-house talent and continue to field a team on a shoe string budget each season (i.e. the Rays way). I think the only reason we didn't see any notable FA signings or trades these last few off seasons had more to do with Angelos trying to keep long term contracts off the books (to make the team more appealing to a buyer) than it had to do with Elias' specific strategy. 

 

[interloper]

I think my question is, how measured will Elias's "win now" moves be? Due to the excellent farm system, the Burnes move can even come off a little conservative. It's a pinpoint and tidy trade: one pitcher, one infielder, one draft pick. None of the players given up really have a big impact on the ML team or the farm and so he can ready another trade pretty easily if he wants to. 

But will he? Or does he play a longer game and reassess at the deadline? 

[wildcard]

12 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

Making a bad joke when someone brings up a completely valid point about a prospect's age shows a fundamental lack of understanding of a player's baseball age / shelf life compared to real life. You're also making a mountain out of a mole hill in turns of the Burnes trade. It's not a fundamental shift in anything other than Elias having to adapt to running a winning baseball team. This was inevitable, especially when it became very apparent that our hitting prospects were much further along than our pitching prospects. He did what he needed to do to close that gap and the success of the move has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not we extend Burnes. If we don't extend him then there will be a long list of FA SPs to choose from during the next off season (Cole, Wheeler, Ray, Fried, etc.).  Or if our MiLB pitching prospects really progress maybe we won't have to sign anyone at all. 

It wasn't a joke.  Hall and Ortiz are 25.

When a GM doesn't do something for 5 years the first time he does it is notable.  That is all I was pointing out.   Didn't say it was good or bad.   Just a shift in what he has been doing.

[wildbillhiccup]

2 minutes ago, wildcard said:

It wasn't a joke.  Hall and Ortiz are 25.

When a GM doesn't do something for 5 years the first time he does it is notable.  That is all I was pointing out.   Didn't say it was good or bad.   Just a shift in what he has been doing.

25 (soon to be 26) might not be old in the real world, but it's certainly old in the prospect world. Prospect years are more like dog years than human years. 

[sportsfan8703]

3 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

But why would you even want to pay and keep Mullins past age 30?  And why would he sign a 1-2 year extension?  Thats not a very favorable deal for him either.

We gotta do something with Mullins. EBJ needs more than one year in the minors. Why mess around and trade Mullins after this season, rely on a reasonable stop gap FA on a 1 year deal, then have EBJ develop fast?  That’s a lot of stuff that has to go right for us when we’re trying to win a WS. 

3/42ish  willing to go 3/45

Why Mullins does it - He’s only made around 7 million his whole career through his OD age of 29.5. I’m sure he wasn’t living large at Campbell either. He mitigates some risk by taking 40+ million guaranteed. 7 million before taxes. Has he bought the big house yet?

Why we do it - Stability while trying to win divisions and the WS. We can allow EBJ two years to develop in the minors. We still likely trade Mullins after the 2nd year of the deal. Risk mitigation. 

It’s cute to want to win with all of our players in pre arb or arb, but that was broken with the Kimbrel signing. It’s not like I’m suggesting extending Hays or Santa. I’m willing to pay for the premium position of CF and where the nearest depth is likely in A+ to begin the season. It’s a “luxury” a team chasing a WS can afford. 

Edited February 3 by sportsfan8703

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

We gotta do something with Mullins. EBJ needs more than one year in the minors. Why mess around and trade Mullins after this season, rely on a reasonable stop gap FA on a 1 year deal, then have EBJ develop fast?  That’s a lot of stuff that has to go right for us when we’re trying to win a WS. 

3/42ish  willing to go 3/45

Why Mullins does it - He’s only made around 7 million his whole career through his OD age of 29.5. I’m sure he wasn’t living large at Campbell either. He mitigates some risk by taking 40+ million guaranteed. 7 million before taxes. Has he bought the big house yet?

Why we do it - Stability while trying to win divisions and the WS. We can allow EBJ two years to develop in the minors. We still likely trade Mullins after the 2nd year of the deal. Risk mitigation. 

It’s cute to want to win with all of our players in pre arb or arb, but that was broken with the Kimbrel signing. It’s not like I’m suggesting extending Hays or Santa. I’m willing to pay for the premium position of CF and where the nearest depth is likely in A+ to begin the season. It’s a “luxury” a team chasing a WS can afford. 

Why do we have to do something with Mullins? They have him under team control for 2 more years. 

[Spy Fox]

This shift has been been planned for years. So yes it's a shift in action but I'm not sure it's because of any change of thought. We just successfully reached the next step in the strategy. 

[interloper]

7 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

We gotta do something with Mullins. EBJ needs more than one year in the minors. Why mess around and trade Mullins after this season, rely on a reasonable stop gap FA on a 1 year deal, then have EBJ develop fast?  That’s a lot of stuff that has to go right for us when we’re trying to win a WS. 

3/42ish  willing to go 3/45

Why Mullins does it - He’s only made around 7 million his whole career through his OD age of 29.5. I’m sure he wasn’t living large at Campbell either. He mitigates some risk by taking 40+ million guaranteed. 7 million before taxes. Has he bought the big house yet?

Why we do it - Stability while trying to win divisions and the WS. We can allow EBJ two years to develop in the minors. We still likely trade Mullins after the 2nd year of the deal. Risk mitigation. 

It’s cute to want to win with all of our players in pre arb or arb, but that was broken with the Kimbrel signing. It’s not like I’m suggesting extending Hays or Santa. I’m willing to pay for the premium position of CF and where the nearest depth is likely in A+ to begin the season. It’s a “luxury” a team chasing a WS can afford. 

As long as he stays healthy, a good CF like Mullins can easily get $90 million as a FA. And that's probably pretty conservative. There just aren't many of these guys out there. 

[AlbNYfan]

58 minutes ago, 24fps said:

I think it's just as easily explained as the culmination of a strategy that's been in place since day one.  It's certainly a refreshing new look, but I don't know why we need to paint it in psychological terms.

I agree, there was never "mental shift", there was and has been, a timeline, if x then y. You collect the best players and hope for a surplus at certain positions. When that occurs, you trade. There is no reason to have "deep" depth if you can improve your club in other ways. I am more curious on why the Brewers let him go. It seems to me they could have gotten a similar package up until the trading deadline. Why not see how your season is going before trading him?

[Frobby]

40 minutes ago, interloper said:

As long as he stays healthy, a good CF like Mullins can easily get $90 million as a FA. And that's probably pretty conservative. There just aren't many of these guys out there. 

Depends how he ages.   He’s gotten slower every year.   There’s only so long you can play CF and steal bases effectively if that continues.  Look at how Adam Jones was in CF his last 2-3 years with us.  Not good.  I’d rather wait and see what’s going on with both Mullins and Bradfield before making any decisions about who’s manning CF in 2026.  

[24fps]

11 minutes ago, AlbNYfan said:

I agree, there was never "mental shift", there was and has been, a timeline, if x then y. You collect the best players and hope for a surplus at certain positions. When that occurs, you trade. There is no reason to have "deep" depth if you can improve your club in other ways. I am more curious on why the Brewers let him go. It seems to me they could have gotten a similar package up until the trading deadline. Why not see how your season is going before trading him?

My theory is they need an ML-ready infielder and they appreciate what Ortiz brings to the table along with the ton of control he has left and the low salary.  I also think that Milwaukee has a good pitching developing program and they feel that they can harness everything Hall's big arm has in it.  To put it more simply, I think Ortiz and Hall were on their radar and they agreed to the trade because they got what they wanted.

Kinda nice to see some respect for both of their talent after all the back and forth from the White Sox fans in the Cease thread isn't it?