Jump to content

forphase1

Members
  • Content Count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Rookie +

About forphase1

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It will NEVER happen, but I would like to see actual production tied to actual pay. Almost like a commission based. All players make a base of X a year, then after that you get paid on results. I hate seeing players like Chris Davis making insane money while not producing anything, while younger players who are putting up huge numbers are making league minimum. I realize that such a system will never be put into place, and I'm not smart enough to know exactly how it could be worked out or what numbers could be used (tie it to wins for pitchers and watch the Hangout burn to the ground 😉 ), but I'm sure folks much smarter than me could come up with some fairly equitable system where for each quarter point of war, for example, granted an extra couple million dollars to your pay. We can argue the numbers and the system, but something like that is what I'd REALLY like to see. Players get paid on performance...if you are good you get paid good. If you are average, you get paid average. And if you are bad you make the minimum. Teams pay for what is actually produced, and players are compensated on their actual work. Not on 'maybes' 'hopes' or past performance.
  2. My 2 cents on why fans tend to side with the owners, or perhaps more accurately against the players. 1) Fans are often irrational, myself included. The players view it as a business, while we view it as a game. We want the players to love the game, and the team, as much as we do. When we see the players fighting about money, it brings back the reality that it's a job for most of these players, and that doesn't jive with how we think the game should be viewed. 2) We see and cheer for the players. How many of us can name all the owners? Outside a few teams I could not tell you the owner of many of the teams. They are a faceless man in a suit...hard to get too emotional against them. But the players? We know them, we see their faces, have watched them play. Again, going off #1 above still a bit, we put our hopes and dreams upon their shoulders and seeing them fighting about money just leaves a bad taste in our mouth. 3) As you noted, we ALL know the kind of money the players made. We really don't know how much owners are making. Sure, we can look at percentages the players get, but we also know the owners have many other expenses that come out of their piece of the pie. I have no clue how much Angelos made per year on the Orioles. But I can quickly tell you how much Chris Davis is making. It's not fair, but it's reality. And I don't know how much opening the books would really help. A player gets 25 million a year, the average person thinks about getting 25 million a year and just what all they could do with that money. When we see that a business makes 100 million a year, often we realize that much of that 100 million is going to go into debt, employee salaries, facility upkeep, factory upgrades, etc. It's just a different dynamic and makes it hard for the average joe to see it as an apples to apples comparison, personal income versus business income. 4) At the end of the day, I think none of us really want to see the sausage being made, we just want to enjoy the end product. When the millionaire players fight the billionaire owners to make more money to play a game, it just isn't a process that most fans want to see. Players are usually the ones who are complaining about the money, and because of that they end up taking the 'blame' for work stoppages/strikes/etc. May not be fair, and may not be accurate, but that tends to be the case. 5) Finally, many 'fans' don't realize how hard most of these guys really work. We see them playing a game, and making more money in one at bat than we make in a year. And we are working hard in our factories, mines, farms, law firms, hospitals, schools, etc...while they are playing a 'game' and making ridiculous money. Fair or not, it's just hard to drum up sympathy for someone complaining they aren't making enough money to play a kids game. Again, many of the above is not rational. But fans are often not rational, and placing blame on labor disputes is no different.
  3. Beats me, he didn't say. But he made it fairly clear that even though we had the money to spend we weren't going to go as high as other teams as the value wasn't there.
  4. Duquette today on XM certainly sounded confident that the Os are in on this guy and that we are in the drivers seat to land him.
  5. Sorry if already posted, but Jim Duquette this morning on Power Alley had an interesting conversation about the Orioles and international market. According to him when signing players for less that $25k they could sign them without approval from ownership. But once it hit $25k, ownership had to approve and that approval was extremely difficult to get. He joked about the number of players they signed for $24,999.99 because once it hit that next dollar it probably wasn't going to be approved. I know Duquette gets a bad rep on this board, somewhat deserved in my opinion, but in many ways I think he was working with one, and sometimes both, hand tied behind his back. He also said we weren't as high on the Mesa brothers, and that's why we didn't really get in that pursuit even though we had the funds to do so. Was mainly talking about this Cuban guy and they both seem to think the Orioles will be in on him and probably sign him. Interesting discussion I thought.
  6. While none of us 'know' exactly what's going on in the mind of Manny, from his past actions, comments and behavior, I also certainly think it's all about money. Not to say that it should or shouldn't be all about money for him, but at the end of the day I think for 90-95% of the athletes today it IS all about the money. Sure there are the random exceptions such as the recent Nick M. signing with Atlanta, but overall it's about the biggest paycheck, and I certainly think Manny fits that mold. Things like better prospects and the like will only really come into play when he is proverbally splitting hairs, and trying to decide between similar offers. Otherwise money will rule the day.
  7. Glad to see this change. Now get rid of Brady too, take the leash off of Dan, and we can start moving forward
  8. I really don't want Jones on the team next year, not really at any price. I'd rather them either 1) play one of the youngsters already in our system who may be a part of a future winning Orioles team again or 2) sign a stopgap OR a younger free agent who could possibly be a part of the team for a few years if needed. But I don't want that guy to be Jones. I want to wash my hands of as many players as we can from the past 2 years, and start as fresh as we can. It won't be the worse thing in the world if we sign him, but it'd honestly make me less likely to watch more games next year than if we've got a new face out there. I don't want to see Jones in an Orioles uniform again after this season ends, except maybe a one day contract to finalize his retirement or something. Just my opinion.
  9. Do I like the way the game is played today? I think it's still the greatest game on earth, but there are certainly things I don't like and that I'd change. 1) take as many decisions away from human umps as possible, especially balls/strikes. Few things are more irritating to me than the arbitrary strike zone that changes from ump to ump, pitcher to pitcher, and batter to batter. I'd much rather have some consistency in the way the game is called. It really shouldn't matter who is in blue behind the plate, if it's Greg Maddux or Sidney Ponson throwing the pitch, or Derek Jeter or Luis Matos at the plate, a ball should be a ball and a strike should be a strike. And I don't care if it hurts or helps the Os....I've been angry at games we've won when that rally in the 9th shouldn't have happened due to an obviously missed call by the ump. Essentially I want the players rewarded/punished for their actual performance, not for their performance as inaccurately perceived by an umpire. 2) A continuation of #1 to a point, but too many umps call a low 'ball' as strike instead. Pitches at the ankles are close to impossible to get any decent wood on them. I think if we raised the lower strike zone to the 'knees' as it used to be called, I think the number of strike outs would decrease and the number of balls put into play would increase. For me that's a much easier/better method to get more balls in play and fewer strikeouts than moving or altering the mound. Same goes for the 'edges' of the plate. Shrinking the strike zone a bit, mainly by applying the rules already in place, would help make the game more exciting I think 3) DH for everyone. For me it's painful to watch an NL game at times. Few things are worse than having the hole of a pitcher in your lineup. It's the perfect time to go make a sandwich or get a drink...problem in that's what commercials are for, and it shouldn't be that way in game action time. Does it change some of the strategy? Sure. Does it make the pitchers more fearless as they never have to bat? Maybe. But the terrible pitcher at bats outweigh any other considerations for me 4) Shifts. I hate the shifts. And I hate that MLB hitters can't seem to adapt to the shifts. I'm honestly torn here as to the solution. Part of me doesn't want to reward the 'bad' hitters by not allowing shifts to happen...instead I want to the see the hitters adjust, lay down a bunt, do something. But it's also very frustrating to see a ball that usually would be a base hit being snagged by a 3rd infielder. On this issue I'm probably going to punt as I don't really like either solution. 🙂 There are a few other things that could be changed like roster sizes, number of pitching changes allowed in game or in inning, etc. Some of these could also be beneficial, but not sure I'd want to mess with it too much. As noted before, still the greatest game on earth, but not sure it's as great as I remember it being in the 80s and 90s. Would be more enjoyable with fewer strikeouts and more balls put into play...and more runners on bases too. Just my 2 cents.
  10. If he doesn't pass through waivers, then hopefully you can work out a trade to the team that puts in a flyer on him....or, if we are desperate enough, simply let that team have him and let them assume that contract.
  11. Honestly I'm more excited to watch the Orioles now than I was a few weeks ago. Sure, the guys on the team now aren't nearly as talented as what we had a few weeks ago. And few of the guys on the team now will be starting/playing down the road when the newly acquired prospects start showing up and being regulars. But for me I have more hope in the organization than what I've had in a couple of years. This rebuild, while painful, was necessary and frankly overdue. This has rekindled my enthusiasm, even for the team they send out there right now. I watch not expecting to see anything spectacular, but watching some of the possible 'nuggets' who may be centerpieces of the team that challenges for a playoff spot in the future. So for this fan I'm fully behind it...if anything I wish more guys could have been moved, but the rules (Jones), bad playing/contract (Davis, Trumbo) or lack of interest (assuming everyone else) didn't allow that to happen.
  12. The only way we get a draft pick for Jones is if we offer him a QO and he turns it down. We won't be offering him one, as it would be bad if he accepted it. Because he refused the trade to Philly, he's gone at the end of the season and the Orioles will get nothing in return.
  13. Nope, I don't agree. Get rid of everyone if we can get a good deal. Stocking for 2 years down the road is much more important than having quality players to watch next year. Just my opinion. I'm tickled that they are doing a full rebuild and not doing 1/2 way measures. About time.
×
×
  • Create New...