2551 replies to this topic

[glenn__davis]

I think Westburg and friends could be viable major leaguers and still not have the ceiling of Correa, he's a top 5 SS and won't turn 30 until late September in 2024. 

 

That certainly is possible.  It is also possible that one of them becomes a legit star.  That's why I said Elias will need to know who to let go of and who to hold on to.

 

Ortiz is the guy that seems most likely to me to be a potential star.  But I'm just looking at stats.

[Mackus]

That's why I said Elias will need to know who to let go of and who to hold on to.

 

This is a big ask.  I'd argue an unreasonable one.  Its still a lot of projection and guesswork.  Almost none of these guys (all prospects at AA/AAA, not just the guys we are specifically talking about) are good enough yet to even be a solid contributor, so they all still need to get better.  Which guys will follow a normal curve, who will exceed that and who will fall short is not something that anyone can consistently project, IMO.

 

I think you can probably weed out guys who you think will fail for attitude reasons.  Try to deal those guys away before others catch on.  But other than that, I don't think there are many consistent tells.

[SouthRider]

When I think about trading some of our prospects I immediately think of Schilling, Finley, and Harnisch.  I'm not saying it's the wrong move, just that is what immediately comes to mind.  

[weird-O]

When I think about trading some of our prospects I immediately think of Schilling, Finley, and Harnisch.  I'm not saying it's the wrong move, just that is what immediately comes to mind.  

It's long passed time to let go of that. Roland Hemond isn't here any longer.  

[Ravens2006]

It's long passed time to let go of that. Roland Hemond isn't here any longer.  

 

At the time, Finley was a light hitting, good glove speedy OF, Schilling had become a reliever until Houston then sent him onward to Philly who turned him in to a starter, and Harnisch was a high ERA/high WHIP starter here through two+ seasons.  I don't recall ANY amount of fan uproar about what the Orioles were giving up to get Davis at the time the deal was made.

 

The other three all took off and flourished at levels nobody had really predicted after they left.  I'd bet a lot of money that Finley at minimum benefitted from the PED explosion meshing with his youth (like Brady surely did as well).  Davis was 30 when brought in, had some injury issues, and I'm guessing didn't dabble in the PED stuff to extend his career.  Hell, he griped about alcohol advertising in '89 because he had nearly been killed by a drunk driver as a teen. 

[glenn__davis]

This is a big ask.  I'd argue an unreasonable one.  Its still a lot of projection and guesswork.  Almost none of these guys (all prospects at AA/AAA, not just the guys we are specifically talking about) are good enough yet to even be a solid contributor, so they all still need to get better.  Which guys will follow a normal curve, who will exceed that and who will fall short is not something that anyone can consistently project, IMO.

 

I think you can probably weed out guys who you think will fail for attitude reasons.  Try to deal those guys away before others catch on.  But other than that, I don't think there are many consistent tells.

 

You think it's unreasonable to ask the GM of a baseball team to make the correct decisions on which players to keep and which to let go?

[makoman]

You think it's unreasonable to ask the GM of a baseball team to make the correct decisions on which players to keep and which to let go?

I think it's unreasonable to expect that he can do it. Of course you ask and he will do his best.

 

Andrew Friedman got Machado for almost nothing (Kremer still TBD) and also gave up Yordan Alvarez for a mediocre 30 year old reliever. Prospects are tough. I don't think anyone can confidently say today which of Westburg, Ortiz, or Norby will have the best career, and it wouldn't be the craziest thing in the world if it ended up being none of them and was like Carter Young instead or something.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

I mostly agree with makoman. But I see glenn's point too. At this point, in AAA the Os should have a solid feel for Westburg, Norby, and Ortiz and who will be best. Though the margins may be thin. When you talk younger players, lower levels its def harder to know.

[glenn__davis]

I certainly understand the volatility of prospects.  I follow the minors as closely as anyone here outside of the On The Verge guys.

 

But this is Elias' job, to know which players have the best chance of panning out.  With lots of data and scouting reports that we don't have access to.  Do I expect him to be 100%, of course not, but to say it's unreasonable for him to be able to make those decisions...what exactly is his job then?

[Mackus]

You think it's unreasonable to ask the GM of a baseball team to make the correct decisions on which players to keep and which to let go?

 

I think its unreasonable to expect them to identify which guys will explode, which will follow a normal curve, and which will stagnate.  There isn't any way to tell beforehand.  If there were, guys that disappoint once they reach the major wouldn't exist. Certainly it is unreasonable to expect Elias to know which of Westburg, Ortiz, and Norby will become a star (if any) and to trade away the ones that won't. 

 

 

Scouting can tell you what a guy will do if things go well or what weaknesses he may have that others can exploit if he can't fix them.  Scouting can't tell you if a guy can make those improvements or not. Nothing can.  

 

Some scouts/executives/organizations can get it right more often than others, but not dramatically so.

[Mackus]

But this is Elias' job, to know which players have the best chance of panning out. 

 

Yes, that is his job.  That is a different thing than knowing with high certainty which of a few similar guys will be the best.  He might correctly think that Westburg has a better shot than Ortiz who has a better shot than Norby.  But if he trades Ortiz and Norby and one of them ends up better than Westburg, that's not necessarily bad process, its just bad result. 

 

Its his job to know the strategy to play blackjack perfectly, but what you're describing is asking him to know which card is coming next.

[dude]

But this is Elias' job, to know which players have the best chance of panning out.  With lots of data and scouting reports that we don't have access to.  Do I expect him to be 100%, of course not, but to say it's unreasonable for him to be able to make those decisions...what exactly is his job then?

 

This in only tangentially related to this thread, but his job is to set the conditions to win games.  You win enough games you make the Playoffs.  You get hot in the Playoffs and you can hang a Banner. The age, cost, color, years of control, whatever of the Team doesn't matter.  There's reasons to do different things (like Marketing, etc) but it's just about your plan for winning...and it's not a one-year thing...it's a 3-5 year window that you align.

 

It doesn't matter what choices you make if you are winning games.  Why do we care what someone does after they are traded?  You get evaluated on opportunity to win.  You can't keep everyone.  You have to make choices.  Not making choices is actually a choice because the Rules of MLB always come for your roster.  The process of non-competitive behavior (and I've been saying this for many years) doesn't inform your choices any better, they're just different choices.   So we did something else and never figured out Mullins but made the Playoffs...so what.  If you trade Norby and he becomes a HoFer...but you make the Playoffs...so what.

 

There are no decisions that don't carry risk.  The only basic assurance you have in MLB is if you don't try to win, you won't. 

[mweb08]

I certainly understand the volatility of prospects.  I follow the minors as closely as anyone here outside of the On The Verge guys.

 

But this is Elias' job, to know which players have the best chance of panning out.  With lots of data and scouting reports that we don't have access to.  Do I expect him to be 100%, of course not, but to say it's unreasonable for him to be able to make those decisions...what exactly is his job then?

 

I very much see both sides here but thought that both were going too far until you reeled back in here. A good GM (especially one that is good largely based on scouting, development, and data when it comes to young talent) should have an edge when it comes to choosing which prospects to both target and part with. 

 

Now will that edge be enormous like you're playing OOTP (computer baseball sim game for anyone that doesn't know) and you're spending a ton on scouting and you see everyone's potential and likelihood of reaching it much more clearly than most of the competition? No, of course not.

 

However, since Mack brought up gambling, I think it should be akin to these very sharp gamblers who find an edge year after year and build wealth doing so. They still are far from perfect, but it's also far from random too. 

[SouthRider]

At the time, Finley was a light hitting, good glove speedy OF, Schilling had become a reliever until Houston then sent him onward to Philly who turned him in to a starter, and Harnisch was a high ERA/high WHIP starter here through two+ seasons.  I don't recall ANY amount of fan uproar about what the Orioles were giving up to get Davis at the time the deal was made.

 

The other three all took off and flourished at levels nobody had really predicted after they left.  I'd bet a lot of money that Finley at minimum benefitted from the PED explosion meshing with his youth (like Brady surely did as well).  Davis was 30 when brought in, had some injury issues, and I'm guessing didn't dabble in the PED stuff to extend his career.  Hell, he griped about alcohol advertising in '89 because he had nearly been killed by a drunk driver as a teen. 

 

 

I would disagree slightly with this.  Schilling was a reliever for the O's because he was young.  He always had star potential which of course wasn't realized until he got to Philly.  Frank Robinson certainly predicted stardom for him.  Finley was a AAA all-star in '88, as was Milacki and Devo (for the Dodger's AAA team).   Of course, that doesn't automatically translate into Major League All-star.  In Finley's case his career was certainly above what could have been reasonably expected.  Harnisch, yeah kinda average. 

 

Anyway, I don't want to think about that trade anymore.  What did strike me, and please someone correct me if wrong, were the '89/'90 O's the last time they had this good a crop of young talent on the upcoming season's roster?  It seems like you have to go that far back as the O's system was so bad for such a long time before Elias.   It also goes to show how such a good crop of young talent can be blown by one or two bad moves.   2015 Pirates come to mind.   I hope the O's don't turn out like that.  

[bmore_ken]

When I think about trading some of our prospects I immediately think of Schilling, Finley, and Harnisch.  I'm not saying it's the wrong move, just that is what immediately comes to mind.  

 

 

It's long passed time to let go of that. Roland Hemond isn't here any longer.  

Not to mention that move made perfect sense at the time. Hindsight is a skill none of us have. 

[bmore_ken]

At the time, Finley was a light hitting, good glove speedy OF, Schilling had become a reliever until Houston then sent him onward to Philly who turned him in to a starter, and Harnisch was a high ERA/high WHIP starter here through two+ seasons.  I don't recall ANY amount of fan uproar about what the Orioles were giving up to get Davis at the time the deal was made.

 

The other three all took off and flourished at levels nobody had really predicted after they left.  I'd bet a lot of money that Finley at minimum benefitted from the PED explosion meshing with his youth (like Brady surely did as well).  Davis was 30 when brought in, had some injury issues, and I'm guessing didn't dabble in the PED stuff to extend his career.  Hell, he griped about alcohol advertising in '89 because he had nearly been killed by a drunk driver as a teen. 

That's because there was none. The O's were getting one of the top power hitters in the game for prospects who up to that point had done nothing. None of us then and none of us now have a crystal ball. 

[Mackus]

Don't think he was someone we'd have wanted, but the Rays just signed RHP Zack Eflin to a 3/$40M deal. 

[glenn__davis]

Yes, that is his job.  That is a different thing than knowing with high certainty which of a few similar guys will be the best.  He might correctly think that Westburg has a better shot than Ortiz who has a better shot than Norby.  But if he trades Ortiz and Norby and one of them ends up better than Westburg, that's not necessarily bad process, its just bad result. 

 

Its his job to know the strategy to play blackjack perfectly, but what you're describing is asking him to know which card is coming next.

 

If he trades away 2 guys that become above average major leaguers, and keeps 1 that flounders and doesn't, I think that absolutely reflects on his ability to properly evaluate talent, and should be used a piece in the puzzle to evaluate Elias himself.  If you want to say that it shouldn't be a major piece of that puzzle, then we could debate just how big of a piece it should be, but your stance seems to absolve him of all blame if he makes the wrong call, and I don't think that's the correct approach either.

[Mackus]

If he trades away 2 guys that become above average major leaguers, and keeps 1 that flounders and doesn't, I think that absolutely reflects on his ability to properly evaluate talent, and should be used a piece in the puzzle to evaluate Elias himself.  If you want to say that it shouldn't be a major piece of that puzzle, then we could debate just how big of a piece it should be, but your stance seems to absolve him of all blame if he makes the wrong call, and I don't think that's the correct approach either.

 

I think he should be able to identify who has the best odds.  But the best odds don't always hit.

 

If over the long haul it appears that we're seeing far less MLB performance than we should relative to prospect status, then that would reveal a trend that Elias isn't as good as everyone else at this.  Similar evaluation should be done of drafting and international signings.  There is a lot of noise in these types of things.  You need a big sample to be able to fine the signal.  

 

Expecting that any one decision must be right because Elias is supposed to know these things is unreasonable.  That's what you said to begin.  Expecting Elias to do a good job overall over many decisions is reasonable.

 

So a choice between Westburg, Ortiz, and Norby going rightly or wrongly wouldn't in itself reveal anything about Elias.  That choice would be part of the overall evaluation, and if he's getting it right more often than his peers than he's a huge asset and if he's getting it wrong more often then he's a liability.

[glenn__davis]

Expecting that any one decision must be right because Elias is supposed to know these things is unreasonable.  That's what you said to begin.  Expecting Elias to do a good job overall over many decisions is reasonable.

 

I think we both think the other is arguing an extreme position that they probably are not arguing.

 

While the post I responded to was in regards to Ortiz/Norby/Westburg, my point was the grander point that ultimately, part of Elias' job is to determine which players can/will become bonafide MLB players and which will not.  As this glut of prospects arrives to MLB ready position, if he clears out players that become good contributors but holds on to players that do nothing, that absolutely reflects on him.  But I certainly understand and agree that he won't make the right call every single time.