Photo

Elias discusses trade deadline, prospects, first half, etc...


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 83,224 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 11 July 2019 - 05:41 PM

https://theathletic....-gm-mike-elias/
@BSLRobShields

#2 Mike B

Mike B

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,961 posts
  • LocationTowson Md.

Posted 11 July 2019 - 08:45 PM

General Managers must go to school on how to give an answer to a question, while not giving any real information.

 

I will say, I wish we had canned DD a year earlier for Elias.   We would have gotten more talent from the trades, probably less players, but more talent.


  • Mackus, FFH and bmore_ken like this
@mikeghg

#3 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,160 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 08:45 AM

General Managers must go to school on how to give an answer to a question, while not giving any real information.

 

I will say, I wish we had canned DD a year earlier for Elias.   We would have gotten more talent from the trades, probably less players, but more talent.

 

Agree.  Very disappointed in the things Duquette valued in those trades.  The cost cutting (not paying salary, dumping O'Day) was either a directive from ownership or Duquette trying to do something he felt they would like in order to get an extension.  But targeting quantity over quality and taking on the $2.5M in international bonus they had no intentions of using were all him and those were baffling decisions.

 

I liked the Machado trade and the Schoop trade at the time.  Still do like the Machado trade.  But the Britton and Gausman trades really pissed me off.  Got absolutely no solid MLB-ability talent back, IMO.  Maybe Tate can become a passable MR and salvage some of that, but even that feels like a stretch to me at this point.


  • Mike B likes this

#4 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,772 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 12 July 2019 - 08:55 AM

DD sucked for a whole lot of reasons. He's gone. Good thing. Hoping we are making progress under Elias.


  • Mike B likes this

#5 Mike B

Mike B

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,961 posts
  • LocationTowson Md.

Posted 12 July 2019 - 12:04 PM

Interesting, Elias was on the fan with Rob Long and Coleman and they asked him many of the same questions, as Dan Connolly did and the answers were almost identical.  Elias is smooth.

Coleman, even tried to get Rutschman's GCL, schedule, because he wanted to take his mother to a game, and Elias danced around that.


@mikeghg

#6 Mike B

Mike B

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,961 posts
  • LocationTowson Md.

Posted 12 July 2019 - 12:05 PM

DD sucked for a whole lot of reasons. He's gone. Good thing. Hoping we are making progress under Elias.

I think we are making progress, but many miles to cover before we are relevant.


@mikeghg

#7 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,421 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 12 July 2019 - 11:20 PM

It's comical to me that anyone still thinks DD was making any decisions on last years trades.



#8 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,772 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 13 July 2019 - 09:03 AM

Dude why is it that every opinion someone on here has you chastise it as uninformned, comical, etc. Lets get real here. Your opinions are no more informed than anybody else's and I am very tired of your attitude like you are the only one who knows anything. You can disagree with people without being a ___________ (you can fill in your own blank).


  • BSLBobPhelan, bmore_ken and russsnyder like this

#9 FFH

FFH

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,551 posts

Posted 16 July 2019 - 03:27 PM

General Managers must go to school on how to give an answer to a question, while not giving any real information.

 

I will say, I wish we had canned DD a year earlier for Elias.   We would have gotten more talent from the trades, probably less players, but more talent.

 

 

i was just thinking this the other day. 

I can't imagine how much more he would have gotten back for Schoop and Gausman....the latter of which is truly an example of how to fuck up the talent return on a trade. 

DD probably won't get another job in baseball again. 



#10 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,421 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 16 July 2019 - 10:55 PM

While Dan was 'announced' as the front man for those trades, that was only because they were beginning to look dysfunctional as reports were leaking about teams not knowing whether to go to Brady or Dan. THEN they announced Dan was the point.  The issues were the same in the previous offseason where agents and other teams weren't sure who to go to.  Brady took credit for "staying in touch" with the Cobb camp and creating that opportunity.

 

Dan was likely out of any significant decision making role sometime in 2015 after he was pouting because he didn't get to go to Toronto after the 2014 season.  He was a disaster in 2015 and likely recommended the things which turned out (intentionally?) terrible.  By 2017 he realized he better to do something to get back into the graces of a paycheck and it seemed pretty obvious he would work within whatever structure was handed to him.  Errand boy with 3M is better than running you own camp. 

 

Brady and Lou Angelos were taking credit for the 'success' of the 2018 trade deadline.

 

We discussed the approaches prior to that.  One approach is to target quantity and argue total value and opportunity and depth versus targeting (intentional) specific players you want to be part of whatever is next.

 

Teams don't really care about quantity if you stay off their best players....but it's an opportunity to 'look good' in the trade.

Quantity is the low risk way to 'win' a trade when you're concerned about the perception of what you're doing.

 

I'm guessing Dan was in the room, but he was likely the least important opinion in that room.

 

Dan was generally terrible at his job (the Talent acquisition part).

He did some specific things that I'd guess were significant to enabling winning from 2012-2016.

Even though the Orioles were enormously flawed in how they go about adding Talent, the entire group of prospects that Chris and others tout as being part of the next great Orioles Team are all acquisitions under Dan.  Rutschman is actually part of last years bad record. 

Mike is working on getting his 1-1 picks with terrible records now.

 

Brady survived the purge.  Every other upper level guy is gone. 

 

We can stop blaming things on Dan.  Elias wants to lose for 3 seasons.



#11 McNulty

McNulty

    la cerveza está muy fría

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,545 posts
  • LocationBS

Posted 16 July 2019 - 10:59 PM

He wants to win long term and have it be sustainable. This is the price. Get used to it, long-winded Trea.
  • Nigel Tufnel likes this

@fuzydunlop


#12 russsnyder

russsnyder

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 07:57 AM

While Dan was 'announced' as the front man for those trades, that was only because they were beginning to look dysfunctional as reports were leaking about teams not knowing whether to go to Brady or Dan. THEN they announced Dan was the point.  The issues were the same in the previous offseason where agents and other teams weren't sure who to go to.  Brady took credit for "staying in touch" with the Cobb camp and creating that opportunity.

 

Dan was likely out of any significant decision making role sometime in 2015 after he was pouting because he didn't get to go to Toronto after the 2014 season.  He was a disaster in 2015 and likely recommended the things which turned out (intentionally?) terrible.  By 2017 he realized he better to do something to get back into the graces of a paycheck and it seemed pretty obvious he would work within whatever structure was handed to him.  Errand boy with 3M is better than running you own camp. 

 

Brady and Lou Angelos were taking credit for the 'success' of the 2018 trade deadline.

 

We discussed the approaches prior to that.  One approach is to target quantity and argue total value and opportunity and depth versus targeting (intentional) specific players you want to be part of whatever is next.

 

Teams don't really care about quantity if you stay off their best players....but it's an opportunity to 'look good' in the trade.

Quantity is the low risk way to 'win' a trade when you're concerned about the perception of what you're doing.

 

I'm guessing Dan was in the room, but he was likely the least important opinion in that room.

 

Dan was generally terrible at his job (the Talent acquisition part).

He did some specific things that I'd guess were significant to enabling winning from 2012-2016.

Even though the Orioles were enormously flawed in how they go about adding Talent, the entire group of prospects that Chris and others tout as being part of the next great Orioles Team are all acquisitions under Dan.  Rutschman is actually part of last years bad record. 

Mike is working on getting his 1-1 picks with terrible records now.

 

Brady survived the purge.  Every other upper level guy is gone. 

 

We can stop blaming things on Dan.  Elias wants to lose for 3 seasons.

 

  He did, but I doubt that he has a very big role under Elias.

 

  Brady is a long time Angelos favorite and I think that's the only reason that he survived the purge.

 

  While I agree that DD's lost some of his power after his dalliance with Toronto, I doubt that Brady had very much

  say in regards to the trades last year.

 

 

  Brady skill set was to to wine and dine free agents like Cobb,  not to grind out trades like DD.

 

  Besides, we really don't know whom was in the room making the deals anyway.

 

  IMO, Brady did more harm than good with his undefined role. 

 

  However, that's past history and I am confident that Elias and company have Anderson under control.

 

  It will be addition by subtraction when he is finally jettisoned IMO.



#13 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,160 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 08:06 AM

He wants to win long term and have it be sustainable. This is the price. Get used to it, long-winded Trea.

 

I disagree that establishing a long term, sustainable winner requires (or is even aided by) being this non-competitive on the field.

 

#1 pick is nice but it's not an overwhelming value.  Their rest of the picks (certainly beyond #2) are all basically equal, so if you don't get the #1 there is zero long-term benefit to having had to watch.

 

If we do get to be a long-term winner, then I would agree that this is a fair price to pay to accomplish that.  I just don't think it has to be paid, we can get that winner without having to be quite so bad and brutal to watch so many nights.  I think we can get much closer to respectability without any cost to the long term upside or timeline.  It only costs the Angelos family some profit.



#14 BSLSeanJester

BSLSeanJester

    Restaurant / Travel Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,341 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 08:31 AM

This is Year One, folks.

 

We suck and we were going to suck no matter what we tried to do. No way around it.

 

Accept it.

 

I hope by Year Three we start to see progress and some stuff we can be excited about heading into the 2022 season.


  • mdrunning likes this

I never had friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?


#15 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,160 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 08:33 AM

We much more than suck, and it wouldn't cost any potential for the future to simply suck.  That is my major complaint.  Makes no long term difference either way, I'll be happy once they get where they are going, but it doesn't have to be this astounding level of inept to get where we wanna go.  It could (and should, IMO) just be normal, forgettable levels of suck.  Instead it's the type of horrendous that will be referenced when comparing other sucky teams for the next 30 years.


  • Mike B likes this

#16 Mike B

Mike B

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,961 posts
  • LocationTowson Md.

Posted 17 July 2019 - 08:50 AM

This is Year One, folks.

 

We suck and we were going to suck no matter what we tried to do. No way around it.

 

Accept it.

 

I hope by Year Three we start to see progress and some stuff we can be excited about heading into the 2022 season.

Sorry, but there is no way I am going to accept a 40-45 win team.  Pathetic is not acceptable to me.  And this team is beyond pathetic.


@mikeghg

#17 Mike B

Mike B

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,961 posts
  • LocationTowson Md.

Posted 17 July 2019 - 08:52 AM

We much more than suck, and it wouldn't cost any potential for the future to simply suck.  That is my major complaint.  Makes no long term difference either way, I'll be happy once they get where they are going, but it doesn't have to be this astounding level of inept to get where we wanna go.  It could (and should, IMO) just be normal, forgettable levels of suck.  Instead it's the type of horrendous that will be referenced when comparing other sucky teams for the next 30 years.

My feelings exactly.

Getting 1-1 for 3 years in a row, IMO, is not worth winning less than 150 games for those same 3 years.


@mikeghg

#18 McNulty

McNulty

    la cerveza está muy fría

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,545 posts
  • LocationBS

Posted 17 July 2019 - 09:16 AM

I disagree that establishing a long term, sustainable winner requires (or is even aided by) being this non-competitive on the field.

#1 pick is nice but it's not an overwhelming value. Their rest of the picks (certainly beyond #2) are all basically equal, so if you don't get the #1 there is zero long-term benefit to having had to watch.

If we do get to be a long-term winner, then I would agree that this is a fair price to pay to accomplish that. I just don't think it has to be paid, we can get that winner without having to be quite so bad and brutal to watch so many nights. I think we can get much closer to respectability without any cost to the long term upside or timeline. It only costs the Angelos family some profit.


I’m not advocating for the team lining Angelos brothers pockets, which is what happens when they don’t spend the money. What I’m saying is that the draft/international pool money is, in my view, the most important thing right now.

I have confidence they could get the talent they need with smaller pools, say of a 70ish win team. But why not maximize the influx of talent right now.

If you want to argue that it’s not enough to warrant this, I’ll grant you that opinion. I view the next three seasons as investments. The last thing I’d want is slightly more palatable baseball now and not having that one extra asset to push them over the top in 2024.

Again, not trying to enrich the owners.

@fuzydunlop


#19 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,061 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 09:57 AM

Dude why is it that every opinion someone on here has you chastise it as uninformned, comical, etc. Lets get real here. Your opinions are no more informed than anybody else's and I am very tired of your attitude like you are the only one who knows anything. You can disagree with people without being a ___________ (you can fill in your own blank).

Come on Steve, don't mess with my entertainment :-P 



#20 BSLSeanJester

BSLSeanJester

    Restaurant / Travel Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,341 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 10:04 AM

We much more than suck, and it wouldn't cost any potential for the future to simply suck.  That is my major complaint.  Makes no long term difference either way, I'll be happy once they get where they are going, but it doesn't have to be this astounding level of inept to get where we wanna go.  It could (and should, IMO) just be normal, forgettable levels of suck.  Instead it's the type of horrendous that will be referenced when comparing other sucky teams for the next 30 years.

 

So what?

 

Do you think Mets fans are still walking around embarrassed over 1960? Detroit over 2003?

 

Will you still care about the 2018 or 2019 Orioles in ten years?

 

How often do you dwell on the 4-32 finish in 2002? Or the 30-3 game in 2007? Or the 0-21 streak in 1988?

 

Every franchise in pro sports has a bad stretch. Some are worse than others but if you're a loser, it sucks plain and simple.

 

Get the 1-1 picks, start doing the shit we should have been doing for decades, and get this ship straightened out.


  • bmore_ken and russsnyder like this

I never had friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners