114 replies to this topic

[hallas]

I'd rather win some more games and have a little more in-season enjoyment than have significantly more roster spots filled with uninspiring waiver fodder.  Certainly less chance you catch a free guy popping if only 2-3 spots are black holes instead of 6-8 of them, but that's a small loss for me. I'd rather have more day-to-day interest.  I hate it when the team is so bad that I lose interest.  That's the top priority to avoid at all times.

 

We're past this point, now, which is good.  But I'm completely convinced that we didn't get here any faster or have higher current potential because of the years of intentionally tanking.

The 2018 team was so awful outside Machado, and Duquette had so thoroughly raided the farm system to sustain our 2012-2017 playoff runs, that I just don't see who we could have added to make the team watchable.  We re-sign Machado and we're a 57 win team in 2019.  We sign 2 or 3 other league average vets, and maybe we're a 65 win team.  After that, there really aren't any moves left.  Certainly not within the parameters of our payroll restrictions.

 

I don't really fault Duquette for raiding our farm system - he did a good job sustaining success while he was here.  But I mean, that couldn't last forever.

[BSLMikeLowe]

The 2018 team was so awful outside Machado, and Duquette had so thoroughly raided the farm system to sustain our 2012-2017 playoff runs, that I just don't see who we could have added to make the team watchable.  We re-sign Machado and we're a 57 win team in 2019.  We sign 2 or 3 other league average vets, and maybe we're a 65 win team.  After that, there really aren't any moves left.  Certainly not within the parameters of our payroll restrictions.

 

I don't really fault Duquette for raiding our farm system - he did a good job sustaining success while he was here.  But I mean, that couldn't last forever.

 

Winning 65 while you're trying beats winning 50 and not trying, and it's about much more than just those 15 extra wins. But the crux of this issue isn't about what exactly they could have done from 2019 on, it's about the notion that their anti-competitive behavior was the only path towards sustainable success. That's a John Angelos-fueled lie.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

I believe the O's have been built to have a 7-10 year window of sustained success.
Success being annual contention, resulting in multiple World Series trips.
We will see, the O's have to prove they can sustain what they're doing.

To get that sustained run, it's more than just developing the existing roster, or maintaining that group. It's about developing the next waive of guys, where you are getting additional contributors, or have excess available for trade to address areas of weakness.

I think this model for the Orioles organization, was the best way to have that.
They have a core that can win. Some will be extended. Some will be traded off.
Some of their system depth will arrive. Some will be traded off.

Your thought is that they didn't have to tank to build system depth.
They could always draft and develop.
That's true.... it's my opinion that there is more in their system and in the Majors today than they would have had by operating any other plan than they did, coupled with financial flexibility (which admittedly only matters if they utilize).

There were other paths they could have taken.
Paths like signing more FA's and trading the system pieces they had earlier to better augment those rosters, which could have allowed them to have a team earlier in Elias' tenure which had a chance (we can debate the odds) at the playoffs.

You have consistently said you'd rather have that team, and even if that team construct couldn't contend, you would have rather watched them win more than they abysmal years we saw. That's fine, that is your opinion, and many share it. One of my opinions is that the ramification of doing things that way, is that you would have given yourself a shorter shelf life.

I think this is an undeniable statement. They need to win at the big league level as you've said but they way they've went about the rebuild has put them at a place they havent been since the late 70s or early 80s. I remember saying as early as 2012 or 2013 that that model wasnt sustainable and we would collapse again. With this model I dont see that collapse. It could happen. I guess it will eventually happen even if its 15 years but it doesnt feel inevitable

[hallas]

Winning 65 while you're trying beats winning 50 and not trying, and it's about much more than just those 15 extra wins. But the crux of this issue isn't about what exactly they could have done from 2019 on, it's about the notion that their anti-competitive behavior was the only path towards sustainable success. That's a John Angelos-fueled lie.

So, my take on this is that Elias/Angelos was right in not spending anything.  The team was so awful and needed systemic changes in player development/scouting, that any investment in major league talent would have been akin to setting money on fire.  We still had the Davis contract on the books as well.

 

What was concerning to me at the time was that Elias/Mejdal seemed to spend no effort trying to find scrap heap guys that might be capable of being league average players with 6 years of control.  Where was our Rodrigo Lopez, or MIguel Gonzalez?  We managed to find those guys under past regimes despite being terrible, why not now?

 

It feels like in 2022 they finally started doing some of that, making a reliever factory of sorts and then trading them for talent.  That feels good going forward.  But that took 4 years to develop?  That really seems questionable to me.

 

But you know, GMs can have strengths and weaknesses.  It's not an easy job, and especially not for a small market team. 

[makoman]

So, my take on this is that Elias/Angelos was right in not spending anything.  The team was so awful and needed systemic changes in player development/scouting, that any investment in major league talent would have been akin to setting money on fire.  We still had the Davis contract on the books as well.

 

What was concerning to me at the time was that Elias/Mejdal seemed to spend no effort trying to find scrap heap guys that might be capable of being league average players with 6 years of control.  Where was our Rodrigo Lopez, or MIguel Gonzalez?  We managed to find those guys under past regimes despite being terrible, why not now?

 

It feels like in 2022 they finally started doing some of that, making a reliever factory of sorts and then trading them for talent.  That feels good going forward.  But that took 4 years to develop?  That really seems questionable to me.

 

But you know, GMs can have strengths and weaknesses.  It's not an easy job, and especially not for a small market team. 

Mateo and Urias were had for nothing. Jorge Lopez and a number of other relievers. Tyler Wells kinda. Not sure how many basically free guys you expect to work out.

[Mackus]

 One of my opinions is that the ramification of doing things that way, is that you would have given yourself a shorter shelf life. 

 

I'm content with most of the other things you've said, but not this.  No way would having signed 2019 versions of Kyle Gibson and three or four friends rather than watching Mike Wright and Jimmy Yacabonis and Dwight Smith shortened the window of a future core once that core is ready.  I don't see how that makes any sense at all.

 

I'd also be much closer to ok with those tanking years if I had any expectation that the money being saved would be spent later (like now or soon).  It will not.  Its gone.  That's indisputable, IMO.

[BSLChrisStoner]

I'm content with most of the other things you've said, but not this.  No way would having signed 2019 versions of Kyle Gibson and three or four friends rather than watching Mike Wright and Jimmy Yacabonis and Dwight Smith shortened the window of a future core once that core is ready.  I don't see how that makes any sense at all.

 

I'd also be much closer to ok with those tanking years if I had any expectation that the money being saved would be spent later (like now or soon).  It will not.  Its gone.  That's indisputable, IMO.

I didn't word that great.   I'm not going to argue that 1 year signings to raise the floor would have a resulting ramification of a shorter shelf life. 

My point there was more about if you were signing FA's of significance, or moving system pieces earlier to try and improve the ML product closer to contention.

 

And we will agree to disagree about the $.  I don't think that's indisputable at all, even with the O's unwillingness to spend this past offseason.

[BSLMikeLowe]

So, my take on this is that Elias/Angelos was right in not spending anything.  The team was so awful and needed systemic changes in player development/scouting, that any investment in major league talent would have been akin to setting money on fire.  We still had the Davis contract on the books as well.

 

What was concerning to me at the time was that Elias/Mejdal seemed to spend no effort trying to find scrap heap guys that might be capable of being league average players with 6 years of control.  Where was our Rodrigo Lopez, or MIguel Gonzalez?  We managed to find those guys under past regimes despite being terrible, why not now?

 

It feels like in 2022 they finally started doing some of that, making a reliever factory of sorts and then trading them for talent.  That feels good going forward.  But that took 4 years to develop?  That really seems questionable to me.

 

But you know, GMs can have strengths and weaknesses.  It's not an easy job, and especially not for a small market team. 

 

That's John Angelos talking. And it's absurd. I'm not suggesting 2019 was the year to hit the free agent market and give out multi-year deals. 2019 was exactly the time they could have gone out and signed the Jordan Lyles', Kyle Gibsons and Adam Fraziers.

 

As for Davis, he was so bad by then that a minimum salary guy off the wire or Rule 5 lottery ticket would have been an upgrade. The only point in keeping him around as long as they did was because they didn't want to spend an extra $700k-ish on his replacement (guess that's lighting money on fire too).

 

I do agree that they at least seem to have actual standards for their scrap heap additions now, which only adds evidence that they wanted to be the worst team in the league.

[hallas]

That's John Angelos talking. And it's absurd. I'm not suggesting 2019 was the year to hit the free agent market and give out multi-year deals. 2019 was exactly the time they could have gone out and signed the Jordan Lyles', Kyle Gibsons and Adam Fraziers.

 

As for Davis, he was so bad by then that a minimum salary guy off the wire or Rule 5 lottery ticket would have been an upgrade. The only point in keeping him around as long as they did was because they didn't want to spend an extra $700k-ish on his replacement (guess that's lighting money on fire too).

 

I do agree that they at least seem to have actual standards for their scrap heap additions now, which only adds evidence that they wanted to be the worst team in the league.

That's kind of me talking too.  I wouldn't want to give money to Adam Frazier on a 47 win team.

 

It's possible that Elias was so concerned with player development that he just didn't care all that much which scrap heap guys he took.  Or he was calibrating his criteria.  Who knows.  But the lack of useful scrap heap guys wasn't a great sign there.

 

Angelos talking would be justifying not investing this past offseason or last trade deadline to "build sustainable success" or whatever once we showed that we could be competitive.

[Mackus]

My point there was more about if you were signing FA's of significance, or moving system pieces earlier to try and improve the ML product closer to contention.

 

Fair.  I wasn't asking for that, just 1-year or 2-year commitments to real MLB players instead of waive wire fodder.  I'm just seeking to avoid being unwatchable.  I wouldn't have been signing long-term deals or dealing prospects for stopgaps.  I do agree those teams didn't merit that type of investment.  Just burn the excess cash that won't help you in the future so that you can have a less grotesque season.

[BSLMikeLowe]

I wouldn't want to give money to Adam Frazier on a 47 win team.

 

Angelos talking would be justifying not investing this past offseason or last trade deadline to "build sustainable success" or whatever once we showed that we could be competitive.

 

That's a terrible way to approach professional sports. Where do you believe all that money saved went? I believe your two sentences there are very much connected. Additionally, I believe they are a harbinger of the future of the team as long as Angelos remains in control. And that part, as much as what happened in the past, is what has me angry.

[bmore_ken]

We have our first strawman of the thread.

When you consider the source, you knew it was coming. 

[hallas]

That's a terrible way to approach professional sports. Where do you believe all that money saved went? I believe your two sentences there are very much connected. Additionally, I believe they are a harbinger of the future of the team as long as Angelos remains in control. And that part, as much as what happened in the past, is what has me angry.

 

There were a lot of terrible approaches to professional sports that led to the Orioles having 47 wins in 2018 with no farm help to come save the day for 2019-2021.  Not the least of which being giving 161 million to a 30 year old TTO first baseman instead of extending your superstar 3rd baseman that was 24.

 

I'm not naive enough to think that the owners were planning on splurging on the major league product once the O's were in contention.  They could have spent 40 million more and still been ranked outside the top 20 in team salary.  That money was probably split something like 10 million to Elias' player development program and 30 million in Angelos' pocket.  Do I particularly care?  At that point, I'm not paying particularly close attention to the team if they're a 60 win team or if they're a 47 win team, so not really.

 

I care a lot more that they successfully implemented a player development pipeline that has the Orioles in a good spot, and the best they can do in the offseason is Cole Irvin and Adam Frazier.

[BSLRoseKatz]

Also signing more random 1-year guys meant more guys you could've flipped for random prospects at the deadline. Freddy Galvis for Tyler Burch sort of trades could've happened more often if you got more players like Freddy Galvis.

[mweb08]

Also signing more random 1-year guys meant more guys you could've flipped for random prospects at the deadline. Freddy Galvis for Tyler Burch sort of trades could've happened more often if you got more players like Freddy Galvis.

Even better if they spent money on better players than Galvis.

I posted about this a while ago, but there were a bunch of players available on the cheap during the tanking that went on to have very good to incredible seasons. The O's were in a great position to take a chance on guys like that.