96 replies to this topic

[dude]

Unfortunately, there’s a precedent for this kind of team building and, well, it works. 

 

Trying not to get involved in this (but here I am).

 

No.  It doesn't work.  Intentionally losing seasons has nothing to do with Winning later.  The precedents you think exist are BS.  They sold you on a Myth.  It's still alive because Baseball pundits for whatever reasons want to keep selling it to you.

 

"Rebuilding" is only about deferring accountability for winning.  There's a lot of value to ownerships and FOs to do that.  There's a ton of job security in not having expectations of competing.  

 

----------------

 

Here's the only outcome I'd advocate for.  Nobody should buy into the BS of rebuilding ever again.  If you think rebuilding is causal to winning and you think winning is somehow "cyclic", then you have to (in the future) advocate for losing again.  Period. 

 

Nobody should do that again.  Ever.  We should be smarter than that.  The reason I keep bringing it up is that we shouldn't forget.  Unfortunately we will forget and you are still going to have people arguing the same meritless BS in the future.

[RichardZ]

Trying not to get involved in this (but here I am).
 
No.  It doesn't work.  Intentionally losing seasons has nothing to do with Winning later.  The precedents you think exist are BS.  They sold you on a Myth.  It's still alive because Baseball pundits for whatever reasons want to keep selling it to you.
 
"Rebuilding" is only about deferring accountability for winning.  There's a lot of value to ownerships and FOs to do that.  There's a ton of job security in not having expectations of competing.  
 
----------------
 
Here's the only outcome I'd advocate for.  Nobody should buy into the BS of rebuilding ever again.  If you think rebuilding is causal to winning and you think winning is somehow "cyclic", then you have to (in the future) advocate for losing again.  Period. 
 
Nobody should do that again.  Ever.  We should be smarter than that.  The reason I keep bringing it up is that we shouldn't forget.  Unfortunately we will forget and you are still going to have people arguing the same meritless BS in the future.

All I know is the Astros were awful for years and were able to draft

Springer 11th overall in 2011
Correa 1st overall in 2012
Bergman 2nd overall in 2015
Tucker 5th overall in 2015


Springer, Correa, and Bergman combined for 14 fwar in 2017 and were key members of that WS championship team. So, I don’t think being bad, intentionally or not, had nothing to do with winning later. Can you do it without being awful for years? Sure.

[BobPhelan]

I'm not saying anybody is s'posed to look at like I do. If you're happy with it, then I'm happy for you.

To me, if you throw a single game that's cheating. Any player who is caught doing it would be banned, probably for life.

To me, if it's wrong to throw a single game, then it's wrong to intentionally throw multiple seasons. It's the same damn thing, just a lot bigger.

I'm not aiming any of this at Elias. He had his orders, and he did what he was hired to do. I'm not aiming it at anybody.

But for me, the Orioles, my team, dishonored the game by throwing games whole seasons at a time, season after season. That affected me. Here's what you need to understand: I didn't choose to take any stance about it. Rather, it made me sick.

I'm not saying I won't watch some games if I get them for free. I might even pay a few bucks to watch some if I can do it for cheap. I click on highlights when they come up, which means I see a lot of dingers and maybe a few K's. When I get back to BAL, I might even go to a game if my brother wants to. But the Baltimore Orioles will never mean the same thing to me that they did for about 60 years. What they did goes against everything I was taught about the integrity of the game.

I grew up on Brooks, not on what devolved into an outfit that decided to throw a couple hundred ballgames. I didn't choose to have that reaction to what they did. In my personal experience, it happened to me. Simple as that.

Like I said, if you're happy, then I'm happy for you. Honest, I am. But I just doesn't matter to me the way it always did before. That's just how it is. Like I said, I didn't choose that, it happened to me.

EDIT: I'm not trying to bum you out. I know it's special for everybody here. I'll just shut up now and let you get on with enjoying it. I hope you have fun all the way thru to a happy ending.

Bye.

So rich coming from the guy who got his pantries in a bunch every time someone act the way he thought a “real fan” should act. At least this time it isn't a happy accident that we're good. Try to “grok” something else.

[dude]

All I know is the Astros were awful for years and were able to draft

Springer 11th overall in 2011
Correa 1st overall in 2012
Bergman 2nd overall in 2015
Tucker 5th overall in 2015


Springer, Correa, and Bergman combined for 14 fwar in 2017 and were key members of that WS championship team. So, I don’t think being bad, intentionally or not, had nothing to do with winning later. Can you do it without being awful for years? Sure.

 

I've done this many times and I can do it again.

 

You want to conflate 2 different things.  Everyone in MLB comes from somewhere. 

 

The question is: Was the plan that Jeff Luhnow sold to Jim Crane in the Fall of 2011 causal to success.

 

If the Astros had won the WS in JLs first year in Houston, he still drafts Correa and Springer was already in the Organization.

 

The 3 draft picks that the Astros got for being intentionally bad was Mark Appel, Brady Aiken and Kyle Tucker.  The only reason Bregman is a thing is because they failed to sign Aiken.  That wasn't some intentionality of rebuilding, they picked the wrong guy and lucked into a different answer that worked out better.

 

The Astros were 100% cheating in 2017 and 2018 and MLB didn't investigate 2019 and we suspect they were more sophisticated with it in that year.  So part of the issue is you want to align performance with a player in a year but you don't know what % of that player is artificial.  You don't want to tie cheating to the value of rebuilding, do you?  I think the Astros answered your own question there because they looked like a fringe good, but not special team in 2015 and 2016 (coming out of rebuilding) and they couldn't get to where they promised so they cheated to make it work.

 

Moreso, why do you want to tie their success to a couple of players (not tied to rebuilding).  If all you need is a couple good players, were they the only team with a couple good players?  Contrary to the rebuilding narrative, it really only gives you ONE unique player per season.  That's it.  As an example, Kyle Tucker is having his best season and the Astros are having their worst.  How does he not automatically solve winning?....he was the 3rd guy in 'rebuilding".

 

The Orioles added Kjerstad, Cowser and Holliday as a function of "rebuilding".  The had nothing to do with the results of 2022 or the 101 win team in 2023.  Cowser has been Hot, cold and warm so far this season.  Orioles are playing well....is he uniquely doing something that there's no other way the Orioles could have somehow accomplished?  If they had drafted 17-17-17 (worst possible position) versus 2-5-1, they'd still have everything they have today but different names for those 3 guys.  (I did this in the T5 v 17 thread, that was the point).

 

If you could somehow guarantee that you'd have the 2 best players in MLB by losing, then look at a team with the 2 best players...like the Angels with Trout and Ohtani and explain why those guys don't make the Playoffs.  I'll answer it....because winning in MLB is about more than having a couple or handful of great players.

 

The things you have to do to build the Team you want that creates opportunity (never a guarantee) to Win (Now and Later) has nothing to do with getting an early draft pick or picks.  Everything else is more important and you don't have to lose to do everything you need to do.  Period.

 

You can pick Teams from the spectrum of resources like the Rays, Cards and Dodgers and none of thier success over the last 20+ years is from rebuilding but they've consistently produced quality Teams (Note why I think something is going on internally with the Cards right now).

[RichardZ]

Ok. Have it your way. Getting multiple top 5 draft picks has got zero to do with getting better which is why the league has put in new rules so teams won’t be incentivized to have one of the worst records in a given year.

I never said teams couldn’t do it without those picks. I never said those picks alone get you there. They help.

[russsnyder]

All I know is the Astros were awful for years and were able to draft

Springer 11th overall in 2011
Correa 1st overall in 2012
Bergman 2nd overall in 2015
Tucker 5th overall in 2015


Springer, Correa, and Bergman combined for 14 fwar in 2017 and were key members of that WS championship team. So, I don’t think being bad, intentionally or not, had nothing to do with winning later. Can you do it without being awful for years? Sure.

The Orioles hired the right guy in Elias to engineer the rebuild. Coming from the Astros, he had the experience, staffing , and overall ability/experience to get it done.

The Orioles were a sinking ship when Elias took over. They had kept the band together one too many years. This same team gave Chris Davis a mega contract in hopes of building the team around the owner's favorite player. Davis soon hits a wall while literally not being able to hit anything else. Perhaps worse yet, the cupboard in the farms system was bare.

Like someone else pointed out, the guys who were in the field during the make over were trying, the teams just weren't very good. I always have felt the rebuild was necessary and I did not have an issue with the lean years.

No offense, but I really don't care if a rebuild can be engineered without the team being awful for a few years.The formula has worked for the Orioles and they are set to be a contender for years to come.

[Mackus]

All I know is the Astros were awful for years and were able to draft

Springer 11th overall in 2011
Correa 1st overall in 2012
Bergman 2nd overall in 2015
Tucker 5th overall in 2015


Springer, Correa, and Bergman combined for 14 fwar in 2017 and were key members of that WS championship team. So, I don’t think being bad, intentionally or not, had nothing to do with winning later. Can you do it without being awful for years? Sure.

 

I think you're associating hitting on high draft picks with tanking, but that isn't a direct correlation.

 

If you hit on several high 1sts in a row plus do other things right, you're going to have a bright future.  But losing on purpose doesn't increase your odds of hitting on those picks (unless you get the 1st pick).  The first pick is different and is noticeably more likely to succeed than any other pick.  (still not important enough to justify tanking, IMO, but that's another discussion) 2nd pick is very slightly more valuable than the remaining picks.  But things are almost completely flat from the 3rd pick onwards.  So if you tank and don't end up with the 1st pick, then it's really no different than just be normal level of trying-but-bad and maybe getting like the 6th or 7th pick.

 

I know we all think that "higher pick = higher odds of finding a regular = higher odds of finding a star" but it just isn't true in a meaningful way based on the history of the draft.  I haven't updated the numbers in a while, so maybe things will change moving forward with some different scouting and development techniques, but I doubt it, because the problem isn't the scouting or the development, the problem is that all 17-20 year old kids need to get a ton better to contribute at the MLB level and there is no consistent way to predict who can make those improvements and who can't.

[RichardZ]

I think you're associating hitting on high draft picks with tanking, but that isn't a direct correlation.
 
If you hit on several high 1sts in a row plus do other things right, you're going to have a bright future.  But losing on purpose doesn't increase your odds of hitting on those picks (unless you get the 1st pick).  The first pick is different and is noticeably more likely to succeed than any other pick.  (still not important enough to justify tanking, IMO, but that's another discussion) 2nd pick is very slightly more valuable than the remaining picks.  But things are almost completely flat from the 3rd pick onwards.  So if you tank and don't end up with the 1st pick, then it's really no different than just be normal level of trying-but-bad and maybe getting like the 6th or 7th pick.
 
I know we all think that "higher pick = higher odds of finding a regular = higher odds of finding a star" but it just isn't true in a meaningful way based on the history of the draft.  I haven't updated the numbers in a while, so maybe things will change moving forward with some different scouting and development techniques, but I doubt it, because the problem isn't the scouting or the development, the problem is that all 17-20 year old kids need to get a ton better to contribute at the MLB level and there is no consistent way to predict who can make those improvements and who can't.

You can’t hit on high draft picks if you don’t have high draft picks. I’m not associating it with tanking per se. The Astros did hit on some high picks. The Orioles have hit on some high picks. You’re odds of hitting are higher at the top of the draft but I accept the fact that it’s more random the further you get away from 1:1.

[BSLRoseKatz]

I think any discussion of tanking in regards to the Orioles should also include the fact that Kjerstad, the reward for 108 losses, doesn't currently have a clear path to playing time this year in large part because the left-handed 1B/RF/DH spot on the roster is being held by a guy who spent 5 years being a below-average hitter in Kansas City. I don't think their long term plan should've been trying to build a full roster out of Ryan O'Hearns, but it does highlight that if you're an org that can find hidden gems and find real major leaguers from dumpster diving then it makes the idea of absolutely needing that many top 5 picks to succeed feel flimsier 

[Mackus]

You can’t hit on high draft picks if you don’t have high draft picks. I’m not associating it with tanking per se. The Astros did hit on some high picks. The Orioles have hit on some high picks. You’re odds of hitting are higher at the top of the draft but I accept the fact that it’s more random the further you get away from 1:1.

 

You do have high draft picks, though.  The choice is never between contender and tank.  The choice is usually between normal, not-an-affront-to-the-sport level of bad and tank.  

[Mackus]

I think any discussion of tanking in regards to the Orioles should also include the fact that Kjerstad, the reward for 108 losses, doesn't currently have a clear path to playing time this year in large part because the left-handed 1B/RF/DH spot on the roster is being held by a guy who spent 5 years being a below-average hitter in Kansas City. I don't think their long term plan should've been trying to build a full roster out of Ryan O'Hearns, but it does highlight that if you're an org that can find hidden gems and find real major leaguers from dumpster diving then it makes the idea of absolutely needing that many top 5 picks to succeed feel flimsier 

 

Kjerstad and Cowser also were underslot guys that allowed them to do some other stuff later in those drafts.  Mayo being an example.  

 

So, while there is no historical benefit of the type of player you are likely to get drafting, let's say, 3rd as opposed to 8th, there is some game theory benefit in the way MLB doles out bonuses to draft picks.

[russsnyder]

I think any discussion of tanking in regards to the Orioles should also include the fact that Kjerstad, the reward for 108 losses, doesn't currently have a clear path to playing time this year in large part because the left-handed 1B/RF/DH spot on the roster is being held by a guy who spent 5 years being a below-average hitter in Kansas City. I don't think their long term plan should've been trying to build a full roster out of Ryan O'Hearns, but it does highlight that if you're an org that can find hidden gems and find real major leaguers from dumpster diving then it makes the idea of absolutely needing that many top 5 picks to succeed feel flimsier

Fair point, however, do the Orioles get Gunnar Henderson in the middle of the second round of the 2019 draft if they win 69 games in 2018 instead of 45?

[BSLRoseKatz]

Fair point, however, do the Orioles get Gunnar Henderson in the middle of the second round of the 2019 draft if they win 69 games in 2018 instead of 45?

 

I mean 2019 was the accidental tank so I view them differently than the next three drafts but yeah "would they have (insert player here) if they drafted here?" is a fair question for how much you can justify tanking but it's also not something I think we'll ever have a firm answer to because every team's draft board is different, Brooks Lee was mentioned as the potential #1 for Holliday's draft and then wound up actually falling all the way to #8 to the Twins after a 73-win season

[Mackus]

Fair point, however, do the Orioles get Gunnar Henderson in the middle of the second round of the 2019 draft if they win 69 games in 2018 instead of 45?

 

2018 they didn't tank, they just sucked beyond comprehension.

 

Also, probably?  With 69 wins the O's would've drafted 8th instead of 1st.  So Gunnar only would've needed to slide from #42 to #49.

[russsnyder]

2018 they didn't tank, they just sucked beyond comprehension.

Also, probably? With 69 wins the O's would've drafted 8th instead of 1st. So Gunnar only would've needed to slide from #42 to #49.

I say probably not with as much conviction.

[Mackus]

I say probably not with as much conviction.

 

There were 4 other overslot bonuses like Gunnar's (though none as big) given out in the 2nd round that year.  Three of which were before pick #49.  So maybe those teams that were willing to spend more would've preferred Gunnar to the guys they signed.  Only one (Nasim Nunez for $2.1M to the Marlins at #45) was a HS SS.  

[russsnyder]

There were 4 other overslot bonuses like Gunnar's (though none as big) given out in the 2nd round that year. Three of which were before pick #49. So maybe those teams that were willing to spend more would've preferred Gunnar to the guys they signed. Only one (Nasim Nunez for $2.1M to the Marlins at #45) was a HS SS.

We'll never know.

[dude]

No offense, but I really don't care if a rebuild can be engineered without the team being awful for a few years. The formula has worked for the Orioles and they are set to be a contender for years to come.

 

For some reason, the community seems to tie building a better organization to rebuilding.  You don't have to rebuild to build a better Organization, you just have to build a better Organization.

 

This isn't a DD versus Elias discussion.  This is a figure out how to do things better discussion.  Elias has done a lot of good things, but (despite what he said) losing isn't required to do the things he's done.  

 

Do things better.  Great.  Everyone was excited to get involved in the IFA market (me too), but it's had zero (z.e.r.o.) impact on Team performance in 2022, 2023, 2024 and probably 2025.  Totally for it, but they are rolling up win totals without ANY of the unique products everyone wanted to argue was somehow required.

 

They aren't set up for years to come because of some start point.  The players that actually are part of rebuilding are OK and will likely contribute, but they'd have to be HoFer in their first 6 years to justify enough impact.

 

How will the Orioles win in the future without more top draft picks? We didn't get Paul; Skenes.  We aren't getting whoever is 1-1 this year.  How can we possibly compete without top 5 picks?  How can they sustain winning?  

 

Are you going to argue in the future that we need to go through tanking again?

[dude]

Perhaps worse yet, the cupboard in the farms system was bare.

 

....and yet, the 101 Win Team last year and the 2024 Team (this side of Corbin Burnes) was built almost exclusively off of the guys that were already in the system ("the bare cupboard"), the waiver wire and fringe trades.

 

It's not a trick.  It's not a debate of opinion.

 

Just go down the entire roster and identify where each player came from.  

[dude]

Fair point, however, do the Orioles get Gunnar Henderson in the middle of the second round of the 2019 draft if they win 69 games in 2018 instead of 45?

 

Does Gunnar Henderson = Gunnar Henderson if the Orioles don't draft him?

 

You can play this game all day.  Gunnar may be the best #42 pick of All-Time by 2027. 

 

Is the pick unique or the ability to assess and develop Talent?