Do the Orioles believe in blockbuster extensions?

[Sports Guy]

20 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

I was thinking about this more in terms of a baseball ops perspective regardless of owner.  Does the FO believe in their drafting and development abilities to the point of not needing to retain “core” players.  Do they think they can build replacements for guys on the 26 man? 

No credible FO person believes in letting go elite talent.

Drafting well is why you don’t sign players like Hays, Mountcastle and Santander. 
 

But guys like Henderson, Holliday and Adley aren’t guys you say no to.

[Moose Milligan]

Hard to tell what Elias and Sig believe when they haven’t worked with new ownership yet. 

[Aglets]

It depends if the young player is a potential HOF level elite talent or not.  If yes.....then absolutely you try and extend him because no system is good enough to reliably be able to churn out a replacement on a consistent basis.   

If it's "just" a solid every day player like Hays, Mounty......etc.....then sure Elias should be confident in his ability to let him go and bring up a replacement.

[Aristotelian]

It's really pointless to ask because the ownership is in transition. Peter signed Adam Jones to a team friendly deal (and Chris Davis to a not so team friendly deal). John did not sign anyone. But that is understandable as it appears he was focused on the teardown and preparing the team for sale. I haven't followed how Peter's death may impact the timing of Rubenstein takeover, but we don't have any data on what Rubenstein will be like as an owner. There is no reason to think that he will be bound to the self imposed norms of the previous regimes. 

[now]

56 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

No credible FO person believes in letting go elite talent.

Drafting well is why you don’t sign players like Hays, Mountcastle and Santander. 
 

But guys like Henderson, Holliday and Adley aren’t guys you say no to.

I think this oversimplifies it. Of course the OP is asking yes/no, but clearly the analytics are complex. To me the odds of top dollar for aging players along with increased injury risk tips the balance to a "no," if you're looking for a blanket answer. But who knows, some players (as in the history of extensions) will be the exception. The magic trick is, how to predict with confidence?

[interloper]

Sure don't seem like it! 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, emmett16 said:

No offense taken. 
 

I guess my question is more, are Elias & Sigs egos (belief in themselves) to the point of thinking they don’t need to sign current players? Do they think they have the ability to draft and develop players w/o the need to spend on FA years.  And, can money saved go into other ventures to continue to refine and improve the development system.  

It's not all about ego.   There's good arguments to be made that pre-FA players > post-FA players, due to (1) superior physical abilities, and (2) staying hungry to try to earn the big FA contract.   Obviously it isn't true for every player, but it arguably is true more often than not.

[Sports Guy]

19 minutes ago, now said:

I think this oversimplifies it. Of course the OP is asking yes/no, but clearly the analytics are complex. To me the odds of top dollar for aging players along with increased injury risk tips the balance to a "no," if you're looking for a blanket answer. But who knows, some players (as in the history of extensions) will be the exception. The magic trick is, how to predict with confidence?

I’m not oversimplifying anything and I’m not talking about it the OP.

I quoted another post that talks about not signing them because of how well they draft and later on, he spoke about the idea of their egos.

So yes, I think that’s over the top. Drafting well doesn’t stop you from wanting to keep elite talent. 

[Hallas]

Do we think the O's would call Holliday up before the 15 day window to be eligible for PPI, if say, he OPSes 1.2 in AAA in 2 weeks, and mashes against some lefties in the process?  Do we think we call him up early?  Do you think we call him up early if he gives us a 7th year in an extension?

[Bemorewins]

4 hours ago, emmett16 said:

Simple question. Will the Orioles sign any of their players to *blockbuster long term deals?  I’m defining blockbuster as more than 7 years and more than 150MM.  
 

There’s been a lot of talk about signing players to long term deals and I’m curious your thoughts about the organizational strategy.  
 

I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately and am starting to believe extensions for our young guys are not in the cards, unless they are willing to take an extreme team friendly well below market value deal. 
 

Elias and Sig are disciples of Lunhow who in the book Future Values is described as being “horny for efficiency” and “being efficient just for efficiency’s sake”.  They are also masters of data and models. Frankly, I think the success of their players who have now gone through the system’s entirety has emboldened them with information.  They have an exact blueprint from start to finish. And that blueprint becomes even more detailed as the players continue in MLB. That information gives them the ability to create models based on data gathered from those players at ages as early as 13y/o and at every step of the way through  their development system.  Not only do they know what works, but they know what does not work.  They know what each step in the process (towards a proficient MLB player) looks like and can easily forecast what combinations of data (metrics from all tech) will continue to improve, what they can modify, and what they cannot modify.  Various data milestones all along the way from youth level, to HS, to college, to minors along with make-up data and basic physiological data can create a player profile that is extremely accurate to forecast now that they have players that have reached the highest level.   With a successful blueprint of data in hand they can more effectively draft and more effectively develop the players they bring in their system and more accurately forecast their future success.  With all of that ability, why would they pay market value or even slightly below market value when they can accurately forecast and stock a pipeline of players at every level that can eventually replace the players on the MLB roster once they hit FA or the higher tiers of arbitration? 
 

I don’t think they will.  My emotions say I hope I’m wrong because like any fan I’ve grown attached to the player.  But I truly think they believe they can draft and develop replacements for their current(and future) young stars.  What say you?

 

 

 

I tend to think being too dogmatic towards any modality/methodology is probably unwise. 

I get believing in your data/science/developmental process. But I also shudder to think about an org willing to take so much risk in trying to do something that no one else has ever done. In essence they would be saying we are the smartest guys in the room/game, and we are willing to bet it all on that belief. The hubris is that may not turn out well in the end.

[Just Regular]

I hope Adley is another Brooks, Eddie or Cal, but if he walks in time it will be an interesting control which between him and the Sigbot's sweet sweet calculations made the recipe work.

All the old school scouts Moneyball unseated have the "Billy Beane just got lucky with Hudson, Mulder and Zito" line of argument, and maybe in 10 years its just "it was Adley".

Felix, Gunnar, Bradish, Mayo, Basallo is a dazzling set of outcomes with players unlike Adley/Holliday that are routinely available to any Club.

Buck-Duquette era holdovers were most of the top Bats outside Adley/Gunnar last year.

[emmett16]

3 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

No credible FO person believes in letting go elite talent.

Drafting well is why you don’t sign players like Hays, Mountcastle and Santander. 
 

But guys like Henderson, Holliday and Adley aren’t guys you say no to.

I tend to agree.  And history shows a pattern of clubs wrapping up those type of guys.  But, players that continue high-end performance from years 29+ are very few and far between.  I’m just wondering if they don’t think the juices worth the squeeze and that they can hedge their bets with younger up and coming replaceable talent.  

[emmett16]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

It's not all about ego.   There's good arguments to be made that pre-FA players > post-FA players, due to (1) superior physical abilities, and (2) staying hungry to try to earn the big FA contract.   Obviously it isn't true for every player, but it arguably is true more often than not.

Ego was a poor choice of words.  What I’m getting at is, do they have such a strong belief in their methods that they would go against traditional thought.  Are their models so strong at forecasting due to the abundance of data & various data milestones they have on players from such a young age that they think they can realistically predict the future of players production.  

[emmett16]

4 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

Hard to tell what Elias and Sig believe when they haven’t worked with new ownership yet. 

We know anecdotally that Sig didn’t ever want to trade any of his prospects and thought they could develop a winner from within.  If they have carte Blanche to do what they want, do they go that route? 

[emmett16]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

I’m not oversimplifying anything and I’m not talking about it the OP.

I quoted another post that talks about not signing them because of how well they draft and later on, he spoke about the idea of their egos.

So yes, I think that’s over the top. Drafting well doesn’t stop you from wanting to keep elite talent. 

My bad - shouldn’t have said ego.  I meant confidence in their models (from an abundance of long term data points from very young to MLB producer)  and drafting & development methodologies.