45 replies to this topic

[TwentyThirtyFive]

So a guy that you say now will be resigned was available 2 years ago because there was something they didnt like about him. Hmm. Ok. So what was it they didnt like and how do you know he was available.


Also even if he was available he was a team controlled 24-25 yr old who had already established himself in back to back years as an AS caliber player. He had tons of value and the Os did not have the assets to acquire him.

[dude]

So a guy that you say now will be resigned was available 2 years ago because there was something they didnt like about him. Hmm. Ok. So what wasn't they didnt like and how do you know he was available.

Also even if he was available he was a team controlled 24-25 yr old who had already established himself in back to back years as an AS caliber player. He had tons of value and the Os did not have the assets to acquire him.

Pundits on MLB Radio shared that opinion the last couple years. If you go back the last couple of years you have rumors of the Dodgers in play for Lindor..

The Seager injury in 2018 had an impact on the Dodgers to the point that they did trade for MM. The Orioles are selling rebuilding at the time so they weren't going to target now players. I would have.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Interest in Lindor does not mean Seager was available. Likely would have moved him to 2nd. Either way I guaruntee he didnt have reduced value just because of the injury. He was 25 yrs old and in his "down" comeback year of '19 still put up over 3 WAR. The Os did not have the assets to acquire him even if LA was open to moving him.

[BSLChrisStoner]

...tell me what Chris does when he goes to get those same type players and their answer is the same.  You see, you can play that game any time you want.  There's nothing unique about waiting...you aren't buying groceries on a shelf.  You have to get conditions aligned to allow you execute. ....but..."what if I want it more?"

 

(I'll answer your question more directly in a minute)

Then I move on to other options.   It's another benefit of not getting fixated on anyone in particular.   

 

Some things are outside of your control.  (Can you convince external player x to join you.) 

I want the organization focusing on the elements they can control.   And accumulating the depth, and having the payroll flexibility necessary to give them numerous options.

[BSLChrisStoner]

We're pretty out of variables.  For an Orioles Team to produce the results you routinely project (WS Contender in 2023), every one of those players in in AA or higher now.

 

I've never even argued with you how you get guys.  Every player in MLB has some projection over the next 2-4 years.  

 

In the context of this thread, that is, by 2023 (your timeline), what players (acquire/develop) are on the 2023 Orioles roster that would give you confidence in delivering your average projection 90+ win total?

 

In 2018 (and 2019 and 2020) I talked about adding Corey Seager.  He'd be better than whoever your SS will be.  So if you don't have players on your projected team better than Corey Seager, how is my team an 81 win team and yours is a 90+ win team?

 

...and fwiw, Seager is off my radar because he'll extend with LAD now that Lindor is in NYM.

Just as a starting point from you, we're 180 degrees different in-terms of the idea, "We're out of variables."  
I just can't disagree with you more. 

I think I outlined why here: 
 

https://baltimorespo...-to-contention/

 

 

 

But briefly.... some of the players internally will be here.  Some won't.  Some will be used as trade bait. 
More to be accessed this year at all levels, and you'll have more information to utilize in who you pick to move forward with and who you don't.

[dude]

Just as a starting point from you, we're 180 degrees different in-terms of the idea, "We're out of variables."  
I just can't disagree with you more. 

I think I outlined why here: 
 

https://baltimorespo...-to-contention/

 

But briefly.... some of the players internally will be here.  Some won't.  Some will be used as trade bait. 

More to be accessed this year at all levels, and you'll have more information to utilize in who you pick to move forward with and who you don't.

 

Still not an answer.  I know what you said.  I responded to it then in that thread so I don't need to repeat myself.

 

Ambiguity doesn't mean you get there. You want to stay in the "everything can happen and whatever doesn't happen to I'll solve with my depth and payroll flexibility." 

 

What I'm asking for is you to create a team that you thinks has a 90+ win average in 2023. 

I just want to know what you think a 90+ win team looks like.

You are always comfortable suggesting the lineups I create (despite what you say, I always have multiple options too) don't have anything more than 81 win potential, but you never suggest what a 90+ win team looks like.

[Mackus]

This thread has gotten much less lighthearted and amusing.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Still not an answer.  I know what you said.  I responded to it then in that thread so I don't need to repeat myself.

 

Ambiguity doesn't mean you get there. You want to stay in the "everything can happen and whatever doesn't happen to I'll solve with my depth and payroll flexibility." 

 

What I'm asking for is you to create a team that you thinks has a 90+ win average in 2023. 

I just want to know what you think a 90+ win team looks like.

You are always comfortable suggesting the lineups I create (despite what you say, I always have multiple options too) don't have anything more than 81 win potential, but you never suggest what a 90+ win team looks like.

 

That's fine and fair.  I think there is more to be determined before that team is built.  But large parts of what I'm thinking are there. And I'm confident that team will be built in '23 because of what does exist (the increasing depth and flexibility). There are always multiple ways to get there. I'm just not particularly fixated on individuals.  Let's see what the Orioles do with Mancini (expect either an extension or trade by June) and I'll put together the team I'm envisioning at that point. 

 

[Mackus]

I think a 90 win team looks like one that scores about 75-80 more runs than it allows.

I don't know how I think an Orioles team that does that will be constructed. My guess would be a pretty high scoring offense and decent pitching staff. But my favorite prospects and young players in the org currently seem to be tilted toward pitching so maybe it'll be the other way around. Cynical part of me thinks nobody currently in the organization will ever play for an Orioles playoff team.

[dude]

This thread has gotten much less lighthearted and amusing.

 

Maybe, but it's pretty germane to the current and future teams.

 

We should be able to discuss a day where we're not mocked for being at 0.0 and what that means in terms of the average wins and opportunity.

 

This analysis is not unique to this season.  They will produce these assessments before the 2022 season (a year from now) and each following season.

 

Being at 0.0 doesn't mean we get to be at 91% later and being at 15% now doesn't mean we can't be at 91% later.

That's my only point. Ever.

[dude]

That's fine and fair.  I think there is more to be determined before that team is built.  But large parts of what I'm thinking are there. And I'm confident that team will be built in '23 because of what does exist (the increasing depth and flexibility). There are always multiple ways to get there. I'm just not particularly fixated on individuals.  Let's see what the Orioles do with Mancini (expect either an extension or trade by June) and I'll put together the team I'm envisioning at that point. 

 

Mancini is traded.  Go.  Or he's not traded.  Go.  Your call.  Do both.

 

If you think he's part of that roster, just make the case.  You keep saying it's not about the specific players.....but it IS about the specific players because specific players define the quality of the collective profile.

 

This thread is an extrapolation of the individual player assessments and how they combine for a result.  This is Talent projection only, we still have to play the games.  They didn't just make up the numbers.  If we disagree with the methodology, that's fine too (something to discuss), but at the end of the day, it's your going in point to a season.

 

Personally, I think Buck liked the 'under-rated projection' because he wanted to use it to his advantage in pushing on other pieces of the Performance Formula.  He didn't want to be the projected front-runner because it softened other parts of his approach.

 

The Orioles have not acquired a player through rebuilding (2019-2021) that projects to be an above average player for the 2023 season.  No, Adley Rutschamn is not a function of rebuilding.  Hjerstad, yes.  1-5/'21, yes.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Mancini is traded.  Go.  Or he's not traded.  Go.  Your call.  Do both.

 

If you think he's part of that roster, just make the case.  You keep saying it's not about the specific players.....but it IS about the specific players because specific players define the quality of the collective profile.

 

This thread is an extrapolation of the individual player assessments and how they combine for a result.  This is Talent projection only, we still have to play the games.  They didn't just make up the numbers.  If we disagree with the methodology, that's fine too (something to discuss), but at the end of the day, it's your going in point to a season.

 

Personally, I think Buck liked the 'under-rated projection' because he wanted to use it to his advantage in pushing on other pieces of the Performance Formula.  He didn't want to be the projected front-runner because it softened other parts of his approach.

 

The Orioles have not acquired a player through rebuilding (2019-2021) that projects to be an above average player for the 2023 season.  No, Adley Rutschamn is not a function of rebuilding.  Hjerstad, yes.  1-5/'21, yes.

Do I get to know what they got for him? 
Do I get to know if he is actually back production wise and there are no further issues?

Can be fine with trading him. Can be fine with extending him. Does change things either way.

 

Again, largely what I think is here. 

https://baltimorespo...-to-contention/

 

But there are variables going forward that I don't know the answers to today. 

[TwentyThirtyFive]

I dont think '23 is the year for contention but I agree that its not worth it to get caught up in the names. The majority will have to be a combination of in house guys or guys we acquired by trading our in house guys.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

I think a 90 win team looks like one that scores about 75-80 more runs than it allows.

I don't know how I think an Orioles team that does that will be constructed. My guess would be a pretty high scoring offense and decent pitching staff. But my favorite prospects and young players in the org currently seem to be tilted toward pitching so maybe it'll be the other way around. Cynical part of me thinks nobody currently in the organization will ever play for an Orioles playoff team.

I have faith this organization is going to start churning out quality major leaguers soon. You would think that would lead to the playoffs but not necessarily. I also expect the playoffs to be expanded for good relatively soon.

[dude]

Again, largely what I think is here. 

https://baltimorespo...-to-contention/

 

I just went back and re-read the thread related to your article and I again, stand by every word I say there.  That took us to the same exact place we are here.

[Ravens2006]

The 0.0% chance thing is funny. The updated post where everyone else but the Orioles is at 100, while the O's stay at 0.0% is even funnier.

The reality of the situation, not funny.

A friend again asked me the other day if I wanted to go in on some tickets. Nope. Not this year. Not spending a penny. I MIGHT go if they were free, and I'd take food in. But I'm just not spending a penny on the club this year (beside the MASN money that FIOS passes on to them each month for me). No reason. I'm sure "starting the clock" too early will be an excuse to keep some or most of the young guys we're supposed to be excited about down in the minors. You can give me bad overall, but maybe give me a small hope they might do something like take 2 out of 3 from NY or BOS in a late season homestand that could maybe hurt one of their playoff runs... Okay I'll bite. That's a pretty low bar too, but at least it's off the ground a little. What I'd like to see is a little more effort to be competitive at the MLB level now. They've dropped the bar altogether.

It'll be interesting to see if / how they transition to trying harder to win major league games "now", whenever "now" actually gets here. Because they'll probably be coming off historically low TV ratings and ticket sales. Maybe several years in a row. That's the piece I fear some folks are ignoring. Listening to LaConfora and Weinman and Long and several on the flagship sing the company line every day that they don't care how bad it is, and all we should focus on is the excitement of watching the young guys arrive... there is no big imminent wave of young top prospects ready to roll in all at once. But they're paid to wave the flagship banner, even though they know the truth. I'm a lifelong diehard, and I'm OUT financially until there's a product in Oriole Park worth wasting any money on. That should worry the money people in the warehouse.

Unless of course they really are better off financially than they let on...

[Mike B]

0.0% is WAAAAAAY too high... Like Jim Hunter or Steve Melewski PR spin high...

Jim is done spinning.  All the years of toeing the company line did him no good.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

I absolutely agree with the bolded part. I think everyone agrees with it. No one is calling Baltimore an innovative organization. As fans, it's just nice to see them embrace established practices for success, that have long been ignored. 

I absolutely do not agree with the bolded part. Sure teams have some things they all try and do. But the O's are never going to have the ability to do some things that the Yankees and Red Sox can do. Money matters a lot. That doesn't mean you have to outspend to compete. Look at it this way.

 

Team A - has a great organizational approach. Scouting, development, etc etc etc.

 

Team B - has  a great organizational approach. Scouting, development, etc etc etc.

 

Team A has a realistic top end budget of $170M and not likely to keep it there year after year.

 

Team B has a realistic top end budget of over $200M and could do so every year if they choose.

 

Which team do you think wins more than the other? Money gives Team B options that Team A doesn't have. 

[Mackus]

Steve, you do agree with the bolded.  It stated that the Orioles don't have some secret formula for development and scouting that other teams lack.  If you disagree with the bolded, you're saying that the Orioles are now smarter than everyone else and will have a leg up in regards to scouting, drafting, and developing talent.

 

Your point about budget is unrelated, though accurate.  Extra budget capability allows for lots of margin for error.  You can make riskier signings since a bad contract doesn't cripple you and you can use cash to patch holes and fix mistakes.

[Nigel Tufnel]

I went to see Sig talk at that book signing he did a few years ago (RIP Inner Harbor Barnes & Noble).  I remember him saying that back when he first started in Houston, they felt like they did have a big advantage over the other teams, but that everyone else had caught up.  I think he said something like, back then it was as if they could walk up to the buffet table and load up on whatever food they wanted, but the buffet had now gotten crowded.