I sort of don't get Elias's plan

[LookitsPuck]

15 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Do you believe that Elias had the leeway to sign Montgomery (who has been terrible for ARI) under the awful Scrooge McAngelos?

He had the leeway to acquire Burnes. 

And Montgomery hasn't been great, but I'd bet on his numbers improving over the course of the year. That said, looking at his numbers now is a bit 20/20. I also liked Lorenzen to go along with Montgomery. 

[Bemorewins]

9 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Then how come the Dodgers only have one World Series in a Mickey Mouse season?

To be honest, a good bit of their post season failure has been due to Kershaw continuing time and time again to come up small in the big moments.

In his illustrious career he has had what 4 good postseasons (one being 2020)? The rest have been bad to down right didn't even give the team a fighting chance. Last season's 162.00 ERA or 1 out for 6 ERs really is symbolic (especially if it was his last one ever).

I can't think of a single great player who has come up small in big moments so often.

[LookitsPuck]

8 minutes ago, Philip said:

I agree that Angelos tied Mikes hands to an extent, but that begs the question of why he was allowed to pay for Kimbrel and trade for Burnes.

And if Angelo’s OKed those moves, why not others?
 

Once Rubenstein took over, the discussion certainly changed, but presumably Mike would have much more freedom to trade assets. Not necessarily sign big FAs, but trade assets.

We don’t know for sure, but Mike is mostly in charge of happens now.

Bingo. 

The Orioles signed Kimbrel in December.

The Orioles traded for Burnes at the beginning of February (supposedly before Bradish's injury).

The Orioles sale to Rubenstein wasn't approved until the end of March.

I don't buy into any notion that Rubenstein was running this club and making player personnel decisions prior to approval (and process didn't even start until 1/31!). 

My gut is Angelos told Elias his payroll was X and Elias was able to stay within those numbers. That number isn't going to change unless Rubenstein infuses extra capital into the payroll of the team, and owners rarely do that, or changing margin expectations (possible). And it certainly wasn't going to change until *after* the sale was approved.

[Bemorewins]

13 minutes ago, Philip said:

I agree that Angelos tied Mikes hands to an extent, but that begs the question of why he was allowed to pay for Kimbrel and trade for Burnes.

And if Angelo’s OKed those moves, why not others?
 

Once Rubenstein took over, the discussion certainly changed, but presumably Mike would have much more freedom to trade assets. Not necessarily sign big FAs, but trade assets.

We don’t know for sure, but Mike is mostly in charge of happens now.

Because that is all the salary that Angelos was willing to take on.

Hopefully, Rubenstien offers more meaningful support.

[Bemorewins]

7 minutes ago, LookitsPuck said:

He had the leeway to acquire Burnes. 

And Montgomery hasn't been great, but I'd bet on his numbers improving over the course of the year. That said, looking at his numbers now is a bit 20/20. I also liked Lorenzen to go along with Montgomery. 

Yes he did acquire Burnes. But with the additional salary added from him and Kimbrel, it is very plausible that under Angelos that was his threshold. The payroll was kept so low for so long it is not a stretch to conclude that Angelos has a heavy hand in that. Especially given the team revenue after all expenses was 99 million dollars last year alone. There are 100's of millions that never saw the light of day during the awfulness of the Angelos regime. The son in particular appears to have been stuffing his shirt, socks, and pockets with much of the profit that the team was bringing in.

[Il BuonO]

34 minutes ago, LookitsPuck said:

I do fault Elias for not having a backup plan for Means. And relying on Tyler Wells as any kind of starter wasn't a great idea. Montgomery would have been great insurance.

Bradish the O's found out about in February. Here were the available options at that date (mid Feb):

• Chase Anderson - uhh, no
• Brandon Woodruff - hurt at time of signing
• Brad Keller - career 4.50 (give or take) ERA guy with the FIP to match
• Domingo German - domestic violence, stinks in the minors with the Pirates right now
• Michael Lorenzen - would have been a good option, tbh
• Jordan Montgomery - would have been a good option

Lorenzen and Montgomery would have been solid options/insurance. 

Also, I disagree 100% on Povich. Definitely not a 5th starter *at best*. 

I agree Povich could be more than a fifth starter. Plenty of guy have had successful ML careers without being flamethrowers. And aside from his first start? he's been better than average. Time will tell. 

Despite Montgomery's ERA I still think he'd be a good option. He's been there before and he's nowhere near his career numbers as of yet. Lorenzen is up and down-witnessed by him throwing a no-hitter with Philly-then stinking it up after and being moved to the pen. He might help to fill out the rotation, but doesn't Povich do that now? Yes, Suarez and Irvin haven't been great lately, but maybe Elias hasn't seen the right piece become available, or they are available, but he doesn't like the terms.

Unlike the "coming unglued" take it is a bad stretch. People complain because the bats slump for a few games and then when they do hit the pitching isn't synched up. It's a long season and I'd rather have the guy in charge be someone who is deliberate with deals than reactionary. Last I checked they are up six in the WC and oh, btw still just two back of NY in the division.

I saw a report the Dodgers were interested in M Miller. Not to keep beating this drum, but he is the kind of guy who can solidify the bullpen and he's worthy of a haul. They can stretch him out and move him into the rotation, or he can be moved back into high leverage if that doesn't work out. The Dodgers have more resources than do the Orioles, but they often make moves based on winning it all in the year the moves are made. Hasn't worked out, except for the shortened season, but the approach is right.

Edited Wednesday at 18:10 by Il BuonO

[Moose Milligan]

3 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

To be honest, a good bit of their post season failure has been due to Kershaw continuing time and time again to come up small in the big moments.

In his illustrious career he has had what 4 good postseasons (one being 2020)? The rest have been bad to down right didn't even give the team a fighting chance. Last season's 162.00 ERA or 1 out for 6 ERs really is symbolic (especially if it was his last one ever).

I can't think of a single great player who has come up small in big moments so often.

C'mon, you can't blame everything that's gone wrong for the Dodgers every year for the past decade on Kershaw.  I remember Byung Hyung-Kim single handedly trying to give the Yankees the World Series on a platter in 2001 and failing to do so.  

I do believe you're partially correct, having more talent is key but I truly do believe that it's a bit of a crapshoot.  You've gotta get hot at the right time and the Rangers last year proved that.  I think you could play that postseason again 10 different times in a simulation and they'd only win it maybe once or twice.  You like your chances if you have more talent but the most talented team doesn't always win, Kershaw or not.  You don't have to look far to see those results.

[LookitsPuck]

2 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Yes he did acquire Burnes. But with the additional salary added from him and Kimbrel, it is very plausible that under Angelos that was his threshold. The payroll was kept so low for so long it is not a stretch to conclude that Angelos has a heavy hand in that. Especially given the team revenue after all expenses was 99 million dollars last year alone. There are 100's of millions that never saw the light of day during the awfulness of the Angelos regime. The son in particular appears to have been stuffing his shirt, socks, and pockets with much of the profit that the team was bringing in.

I'm not disagreeing about John's penny pinching vs. his father (who was willing to pay when they were good). John was way too methodical to a fault with the budget. There was clearly a margin he wanted to target and never deviated from it.

I'm just addressing this notion that Rubenstein had any say in the budget when it came to Kimbrel or Burnes. People were trying to give credit to Rubenstein for Burnes. That happened back in February and ever since. It fundamentally misses how businesses are run and, hell, risk management and governance for that matter.

Edited Wednesday at 18:12 by LookitsPuck

[Bemorewins]

3 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

C'mon, you can't blame everything that's gone wrong for the Dodgers every year for the past decade on Kershaw.  I remember Byung Hyung-Kim single handedly trying to give the Yankees the World Series on a platter in 2001 and failing to do so.  

I do believe you're partially correct, having more talent is key but I truly do believe that it's a bit of a crapshoot.  You've gotta get hot at the right time and the Rangers last year proved that.  I think you could play that postseason again 10 different times in a simulation and they'd only win it maybe once or twice.  You like your chances if you have more talent but the most talented team doesn't always win, Kershaw or not.  You don't have to look far to see those results.

I didn't say everything. I said a good bit.

Can you think of in your lifetime a single player who is a no-doubt about it HOF like Kershaw who has come up so small in big moments consistently? It defies logic.

I'm not discrediting the need for good fortune. However, I don't think it's a simple roll of the dice either. The Rangers had several elite bats that performed at their best when the lights were brightest and then they caught lightening in a bottle with Heim, Carter, and Garver. Basically all of their batters hit the ball out of the yard in the postseason save for Grossman, and Semien didn't have a great postseason by his standards/multi-year all-star abilities.

[The Goob]

1 hour ago, Bemorewins said:

It's hard to see us being favored against even a decent team like the Mariners (with our starting pitching as is) given the talent disadvantage in the two rotations. Now we that doesn't mean that we couldn't/wouldn't pull it out. But I doubt that we would be favorites as things are going. And then when you look at a team like the Phillies with their rotation/offense/bullpen or even the Dodgers for that matter, I believe that even if we made it that far, we would be heavy underdogs against either opponent.

I don't like our chances of continuously having to rely upon "beating the odds" round after round (I didn't even mention NY if we were to meet them). This is year 3 of Adley, 2 for Gunnar, and possibly our only with Burnes. Without making significant trades or major FA acquisitions, I don't see any near future scenarios where things are better for us, we have more talent or frankly a better opportunity. 

 

In a Divisional Series if we played the Mariners and Burnes pitches games 1 and 4 and Rodriguez pitches games 2 and 5 you would really take the Mariners who are scoring 3.9 runs a game and have an 8 run differential versus the Orioles who score 5.0 runs a game and have an 108 run differential because their third and fourth starters are better than the Orioles?  This is why I say the only thing coming unglued is the general sentiment on this message board.  I think we would heavy favorites against the Mariners in a 5 or 7 game series.

[Philip]

19 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

You are just parsing words.  The Orioles are not missing the playoffs.  
 

And yea, your overreactions are ridiculous. Being worried that we don’t have enough to win a WS makes sense. Being concerned that the team is going to sink and not be good is just not smart.

You yourself admit that we need some acquisitions. That means that you agree that the team currently is inadequate.

So, inadequate for what?

I never said we wouldn’t make the playoffs, I said we would “slowly sink.”

that’s neither an overreaction, nor certainly not ridiculous. Let me explain what I mean by “slowly sink.”

I don’t think we will continue our same winning percentage, I don’t think we will win 100 games, and I don’t think we will win the division. That’s what I meant.

If you disagree with those concerns, then you also think we don’t need to make any acquisitions, because you think we’re going to win as many games whether we do or don’t.

But I doubt you disagree with them. Instead I think you probably don’t worry about them because even if all those things happen, we can still make the playoffs, and that’s fine, I agree with that

I have no desire to be contentious. But those worries are certainly not ridiculous.

[ledzepp8]

54 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

If you believe that the playoffs/World Series is a crap shot, then you should be fine with the roster as is.

I don't believe that. I believe that the better your high performing talent does in the post season against the other team's best talent, the better your odds of succeeding are.

I don't believe for a second that Irvin is going to magically turn into a pitcher that I would have ANY confidence winning a postseason game on the road in NY or Philly. I don't have confidence that Craig Kimbrel will go into one of those environments against those caliber of lineups/opponents and save 2/3/4 games in a 7 game series. I don't believe it's a good bet to bet on him or Cano succeeding against Soto/Judge or Turner/Harper/Realmuto/Bohm or Ohtani/Betts/Freeman with the season on the line. I just don't.

But I respect your opinion if you believe the opposite.

I think the vast majority of people think that playoffs in any professional sport is a crap shoot. I also don't think you'll find anyone on this board that doesn't want to make any additions to this roster. I just take issue with an argument that says there is no way the Orioles could win the WS with their pitching staff. That's over the top and hyperbolic.

Just over the past few years, there have been teams that won the WS with pitching staffs that were as good or worse that the Orioles. 

'21 Braves starters 3.84, BP 3.97

'19 Nats 3.53, 5.68

'18 Red Sox 3.77, 3.72

'17 Astros 4.03, 4.27

'15 Royals 4.34, 2.72

'13 Red Sox 3.84, 3.70

[Bemorewins]

8 minutes ago, LookitsPuck said:

I'm not disagreeing about John's penny pinching vs. his father (who was willing to pay when they were good). John was way too methodical to a fault with the budget. There was clearly a margin he wanted to target and never deviated from it.

I'm just addressing this notion that Rubenstein had any say in the budget when it came to Kimbrel or Burnes. People were trying to give credit to Rubenstein for Burnes. That happened back in February and ever since. It fundamentally misses how businesses are run and, hell, risk management and governance for that matter.

I never said that and do not believe any of that as Rubenstein didn't even have control of the franchise at that time. And you better believe that if it was still in Angelos hands he would not allow Rubenstein much of any input until ALL of the risk/liability was transferred to Rubenstein.

I love your use of the word "methodical" there to describe John Angelos. I have some of other words for it - cheap, miserish, greedy, moneygrubbing, tightwad, terrible, awful ... just to name a few...lol

[Bemorewins]

3 minutes ago, ledzepp8 said:

I think the vast majority of people think that playoffs in any professional sport is a crap shoot. I also don't think you'll find anyone on this board that doesn't want to make any additions to this roster. I just take issue with an argument that says there is no way the Orioles could win the WS with their pitching staff. That's over the top and hyperbolic.

Just over the past few years, there have been teams that won the WS with pitching staffs that were as good or worse that the Orioles. 

'21 Braves starters 3.84, BP 3.97

'19 Nats 3.53, 5.68

'18 Red Sox 3.77, 3.72

'17 Astros 4.03, 4.27

'15 Royals 4.34, 2.72

'13 Red Sox 3.84, 3.70

The 2018 Red Sox won 108 games that year. I don't remember many if any people questioning their chances or considering them a long shot goin into the tournament. There are a few other teams on that list who were by no means long shots either.

No on to your point about posters on this board, as late as last week there were several posters arguing that Irvin/Suarez/Kremer/Povich would be fine as your third starter going into the postseason. Now, after 3 consecutive series of really poor pitching, some have changed their minds. But many have shifted from "we don't need to trade" to "we can get a good pitcher but don't trade any of our good prospects". Like it somehow works that way.

[ledzepp8]

11 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

 

I'm not discrediting the need for good fortune. However, I don't think it's a simple roll of the dice either. The Rangers had several elite bats that performed at their best when the lights were brightest and then they caught lightening in a bottle with Heim, Carter, and Garver. Basically all of their batters hit the ball out of the yard in the postseason save for Grossman, and Semien didn't have a great postseason by his standards/multi-year all-star abilities.

It is more or less. Once you get in the playoffs, all the teams are talented and all the teams have some kind of weakness. Sure there are better teams on paper and some of the teams probably have more talent than others. But I just don't think it's all that drastic of a difference most of time. It's not like you're sticking the Athletics or White Sox in the playoffs and calling it a crap shoot.