Should Rubenstein relieve Mike Elias of his duties?

[RZNJ]

44 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

We won't know until 2026 whether it was a bad trade. Plenty of time for Rogers to get fixed. The trade had very little to do with 2024.

Yes, Rogers was the first option to shore up the rotation but we had other options and it turned out we were OK without him. It's not like Suarez pitching well was a complete surprise. 

I think Suarez pitching well at this point of the season was a big surprise.  It looked like he was gassed at one point and had lost his mojo.   I think the trade absolutely had to do with 2024 but part of his attractiveness was the 2 years of service time.  The trade gets an F for the 2024 season.  Rogers can rehabilitate that rating upward over the next year or two.

 

[Too Tall]

8 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

Who's better that we can get to run the team?

Don't confuse. Don't you know, it's much easier to complain than come up with a solution. And complaining about one trade as a basis for anything is silly. Now of course if Syd was still alive, I'd vote some of you deserve that experience.

[RZNJ]

54 minutes ago, DrinkinWithFermi said:

Judging the Rogers trade right now is really, really, REALLY silly.

It's like judging a draft pick based on 15 games in Low A in his draft year.

Whether or not it was a good trade won't be known for awhile yet.

The final grade won’t be known for a while but our end of the deal has been a disaster for this year.

[Sports Guy]

36 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Perhaps not. But why not wait until the offseason to try and trade for him then? Why make moves at the trade deadline for a player that may not hep you this year too? In theory that players should still be available this offseason and the team would still have Norby and Stowers for depth for this year's run.

That's why I do think it was for this year and the fact that he was under contract for two more years made it that much better.

The problem Elias has is Peter Bendix out played him at the trade deadline just like Kim Ng did to him when she got Tanner Scott for ash and trash in her system. 

Eflin might end up his best trade deadline acquisition assuming he comes back healthy. Up until then, the Lopez trade was his best deadline trade.

Maybe they don’t wait because it’s a deal that was presented to them and they liked it. Maybe they didn’t want to risk injury to Norby or Stowers?

And sure, maybe they thought he could help them now but maybe there was more to changing him then they realized and decided to scrap that idea.

The Os didn’t need another starter at the time of the trade. That’s a fallacy.

They had plenty of starters. Guys just got hurt so it makes it look worse.

[Moose Milligan]

44 minutes ago, dystopia said:

Most of his trades have been very solid to excellent. This one was bad. It does not mean he should be fired. The thread is ridiculous (I’m sure you agree)

This one has been bad...so far.  Like, the book isn't written on Stowers and Norby and Rogers.  

I certainly understand why people would jump to say this is a bad trade, Rogers was terrible and Norby has looked really good in Miami.  But that doesn't mean this is who these guys are moving forward.

And yes, this is a ridiculous thread.

[Sports Guy]

38 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Perhaps not. But why not wait until the offseason to try and trade for him then? Why make moves at the trade deadline for a player that may not hep you this year too? In theory that players should still be available this offseason and the team would still have Norby and Stowers for depth for this year's run.

That's why I do think it was for this year and the fact that he was under contract for two more years made it that much better.

The problem Elias has is Peter Bendix out played him at the trade deadline just like Kim Ng did to him when she got Tanner Scott for ash and trash in her system. 

Eflin might end up his best trade deadline acquisition assuming he comes back healthy. Up until then, the Lopez trade was his best deadline trade.

The Mancini trade was good too.

The Flaherty trade was fine..just didn’t work out but that doesn’t make it a bad trade, especially if judge the trade itself and not the results.

[Tony-OH]

9 minutes ago, Too Tall said:

Don't confuse. Don't you know, it's much easier to complain than come up with a solution. And complaining about one trade as a basis for anything is silly. Now of course if Syd was still alive, I'd vote some of you deserve that experience.

You do realize that the person who wrote this is in the extreme minority and that not a single person in this thread is using the Rogers trade as a "basis' for anything besides that it has not been a good trade so far. Don't conflate the two. 

Clearly very, very few people think Elias should go, even if some of are critical of how parts of the organization are run.

[Moose Milligan]

1 hour ago, e16bball said:

I just want to say that I do think Elias is the greatest thing since whatever.

I don’t really know what “since whatever” means, but I was born in 1985 and can say that no individual who has joined this organization since then has made the kind of impact Elias has made. Not even close.

That doesn’t mean I’m saying he’s perfect or flawless, which is where the silly hyperbole part comes in. Just because I think Elias is great doesn’t mean I believe he never errs or is beyond questioning. There are moves that I don’t understand — I’m as puzzled as everyone about never taking pitchers in the draft, and I’m very concerned about the struggles we continue to have with the AAA kids coming up to the bigs and being terrible.

But then I lose the microscope and zoom out to see the big picture. In 2018, we won 47 games and the cupboard was very nearly bare. It’s 2024, we have a 100 win season under our belts and now we’re all pulling our hair out because we’re not running away with the “best record in baseball” crown. It’s September, we’re 20 games over .500, we’re like a game back of the Yankees for the division lead, we’ve got like 99% playoff odds — and everyone is MISERABLE about it. The standard is so different and the bar has been raised so much that it’s shocking. 

And it’s so much more even than the play on the MLB field. It’s about the total overhaul they’ve done in terms of drafting, development, analytics, creating an honest-to-God international presence. This franchise has gone from decades behind the times to being probably a consensus top 5 best-run organization in the sport. In 6 years. That’s wild. 

So while I appreciate your responses in this post and throughout this thread, Moose, I’m going to undercut you on this one. I do think Elias is the greatest thing since whatever, and I’m 100% willing to be flamed for that. I find it absolutely befuddling that a thread like this even exists. 

I was born in '81 so I've got maybe a few more memories than you.  

To your point, I agree that there's no one that's joined the franchise that's had the impact that he has...on the field or off it.  Camden Yards opening was a big, big deal when it happened, but that's about all I've got.  Ripken breaking the streak was a big thing, too...but I think that was more of a celebration about baseball and recovering from the '94 strike than it was about the Orioles and doing big things for the franchise.  So for me, it's Camden Yards and Elias as far as impacts on the franchise itself.

You're correct on all your points...going back to everything post '83 World Series, he probably is the single biggest thing and best thing that's happened to this franchise. 

Some fans here and fans I've seen in other places are acting like the fat chick in high school that lost 30 pounds and then got smoking hot and thought all her problems would go away.  Just cause you got hot doesn't mean you don't have problems, you just have a different set of problems.  And I'd trade these problems over the problems from 2017-2018 any day of the week. 

I find it befuddling that this thread exists, too...but here we are. 

[Tony-OH]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Maybe they don’t wait because it’s a deal that was presented to them and they liked it. Maybe they didn’t want to risk injury to Norby or Stowers?

And sure, maybe they thought he could help them now but maybe there was more to changing him then they realized and decided to scrap that idea.

The Os didn’t need another starter at the time of the trade. That’s a fallacy.

They had plenty of starters. Guys just got hurt so it makes it look worse.

They did need a starter at the time because Povich and McDermott had been tried and left the team wanting, Suarez and Irvin had struggled, and Kremer was 2-4 with a 4.97 ERA and 5.27 FIP over his last 6 starts. They basically felt good about Burnes, Eflin and Grayson, two of which went down shortly after the trades, proving the team needed more starting pitching depth.

Thankfully, both Suarez and Kremer have pitched better, but Rogers being a pumpkin has put the team in a bind because now both Povich and Irvin are in the rotation and Burnes has struggled.

[Tony-OH]

8 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The Mancini trade was good too.

The Flaherty trade was fine..just didn’t work out but that doesn’t make it a bad trade, especially if judge the trade itself and not the results.

The Mancini trade has netted one start from McDermott and part of the trade that brought Soto. The good part of the Mancini was getting rid of Mancini, who was about to become a pumpkin (And I take no satisfaction in saying that because of Mancini's story).

You always eventually judge the trades by the results. It doesn't matter if the idea was sound, if you trade for a guy and he doesn't perform, that ends up a bad trade. 

That's like saying the Glenn Davis trade was sound because the team needed a power hitting first baseman. 

[Moose Milligan]

1 hour ago, Baseball fandom said:

The part that I really agree with Tony about was Elias was great for the rebuild but will he be the guy to get them over the top. Time will tell. 

There's no reason he can't be.

So many people want to ignore the fact that the playoffs are a crap shoot.  And I think when people hear that, they literally think it's a metaphor for literally rolling the dice and seeing what comes up.  

Winning it all isn't just about the front office moves, the moves made in the offseason and at the deadline and all of that....  yes, those things are a big part of it.... but it's also about how you finish the season, who do you have that's healthy, who isn't healthy, and are you getting hot at the right time.  Those things all play a part in who wins it all and people either can't grasp that or don't want to grasp that.  And then on TOP of those things is the randomness that is the playoffs itself.

It's been pointed out here ad nauseum but it bears repeating...the Rangers got hot at the exact right time last year.  They weren't world beaters through the regular season.  They're not that good this year.  But for a few weeks there they were on absolute fire and they were on fire when it mattered most.  I don't think anyone considered them at any point last year to be the best team in baseball but that didn't matter.

Same with the Nats in 2019, they caught fire for an extended stretch and then really heated up in the playoffs.  Same with that year the Cardinals won like 82 games but then ended up winning it all.

There's no reason Elias can't be the guy as long as he's building teams that get to the playoffs.  

[Prodigyx]

After looking back at the Astros drafts from 2012 to 2017 it looks like he completely switched his draft strategy.  Which makes me wonder why. 

 Could it be with Angelos as the owner he knew we couldn't or wouldnt spend big money for pitching?

  Now with Rubenstein as the owner, could he be a little more willing to spend, so that could change his strategy going forward.

[Aristotelian]

25 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

The final grade won’t be known for a while but our end of the deal has been a disaster for this year.

Disaster is a huge overstatement. It hasn't worked out but Elias thankfully pulled the plug on the experiment quickly and used the option with a minimum of damage. We are 1-3 in his starts and one of those losses was on the bullpen. Suarez and Irvin stepped up. Hardly a disaster.

[Osornot]

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

There's no reason he can't be.

So many people want to ignore the fact that the playoffs are a crap shoot.  And I think when people hear that, they literally think it's a metaphor for literally rolling the dice and seeing what comes up.  

Winning it all isn't just about the front office moves, the moves made in the offseason and at the deadline and all of that....  yes, those things are a big part of it.... but it's also about how you finish the season, who do you have that's healthy, who isn't healthy, and are you getting hot at the right time.  Those things all play a part in who wins it all and people either can't grasp that or don't want to grasp that.  And then on TOP of those things is the randomness that is the playoffs itself.

It's been pointed out here ad nauseum but it bears repeating...the Rangers got hot at the exact right time last year.  They weren't world beaters through the regular season.  They're not that good this year.  But for a few weeks there they were on absolute fire and they were on fire when it mattered most.  I don't think anyone considered them at any point last year to be the best team in baseball but that didn't matter.

Same with the Nats in 2019, they caught fire for an extended stretch and then really heated up in the playoffs.  Same with that year the Cardinals won like 82 games but then ended up winning it all.

There's no reason Elias can't be the guy as long as he's building teams that get to the playoffs.  

I believe that this first post-Angelos offseason will allow us to start looking at this more fairly.  None of us know what an Angelos, let alone Angelos trying to sell front office was like.  Plus, the injuries this team has had are the worst I can remember.  Burnes, Bradish, GRod, Means(?) would have made a nice staff... then add Efflin at the deadline. Yikes

Not a huge fan of the Rogers trade - and, from what I thought I read, it seemed like the trade was made with next year in mind... and hope they get lucky this year with a quick fix  Plus, Norby and Stowers most likely would not have had the opportunity to make a difference this year unfortunately

[Just Regular]

8 minutes ago, Prodigyx said:

After looking back at the Astros drafts from 2012 to 2017 it looks like he completely switched his draft strategy.  Which makes me wonder why. 

 Could it be with Angelos as the owner he knew we couldn't or wouldnt spend big money for pitching?

  Now with Rubenstein as the owner, could he be a little more willing to spend, so that could change his strategy going forward.

I do think the Mark Appel-Brady Aiken 1-2 punch might have driven some SIGBOT knobs getting turned.

Quibbling over that ligament diameter or whatever it was got them to the Bregman-Tucker pair that now is perhaps nearing the end of its run.