Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/16/2009 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    And just to throw my 2 cents in.... When I talked to Matt after he got back to California, he said the coaches were very pleased with how he did, the track he's on, and how his first season went (albeit a short one). I'm guessing these are the guys who he really has to impress. So far, so good. I'm sure Matt's getting himself ready for the next season and wants to kick it up a notch. He knows the areas he needs to work on and we're excited to see how he does when he back on the mound. Just as a side note, I'd love to see him get a few a shots at the plate too. It's probably not going to happen but he's one hell of a hitter too!:clap3:
  2. 2 points
    Actually I can. I posted this last year after a similar discussion this was thru the 2008 season. I have not updated it with 2009 but it will clearly follow the same pattern Since, I think 162 games is a better barometer of trends I have chosen to look at playoff teams to see the impact of payroll dollars. Here are some interesting stats. There have been 112 playoff teams since 1995. The average payroll ranking of a playoff team is 9.88 The top payroll team has made the playoffs 79% of the time. The top 5 payroll teams (or roughly 17% of of the league) have accounted for 31% of the 112 playoff teams The top 10 payroll teams have accounted for 60% of the 112 playoff teams The top 15 payroll teams have accounted for 78% of the 112 playoff teams Conversely, The bottom 10 payroll teams (or roughly 1/3) have accounted for 12% of the 112 playoff teams. The bottom 5 payroll teams have accounted for 8% of the 112 playoff teams. What I am saying for 2009 is: 50% of the playoff teams were from the top 7 teams in payroll. 62.5% of the playoff teams came from the top 10 payroll teams. 87.5% of the payroll teams (7 of 8) came from the top 18 payrolled teams. 12.5% or one team came from the bottom 12 payrolled teams. I think you can see that the majority of playoff teams come from top 10 in payroll. Another way to look at this is that of the top 9 payroll teams 50% made the playoffs. Of the bottom 21 teams 14% made the playoffs. That trend is pretty consistent with the past 15 years.
  3. 2 points
    I apologize Crawdad. I'm taking another situation out on you.... We're good...
  4. 2 points
    But that ONE TEAM (!) Has drastically thrown off the salary scales for everyone else. Not everyone can spend like the Yankees, but a lot of teams try. The Angels, Red Sox, Cubs, Tigers etc. Because the Yankees do what they do the league is now divided into three divisions: The spenders The teams that can spend a little on FA here or there And the teams that have no chance at FA's whatsoever. Moreover, because of uncontrolled spending now even mediocre talent is out of the reach of smaller market clubs. CC makes what he makes, you think the Giants will be able to afford that when Lincecum's contract is up? The Brewers made the playoffs last year, last year. Why didn't they make the playoffs this year? Because there is no way in Hell they could afford to keep CC Sabathia. And now look at the Brewers, they need to start thinking about trading away Fielder and Braun because THEY will become too expensive. Minnesota, guess who's contracts are up this year? Mauer and Cuddyer. Now, Cuddyer has an option for 2011, but the point is this, think that the Twins will have the resources to keep both? I think Mauer likes it enough in MIN to stay but think of the money he would command on the open market. Would anyone except the Yankees or Red Sox be able to afford him? Besides, the AL Central is a division of mid market teams, and one team that tried to play Ynakee-ball and has had it blow up in their face. What happens to the Orioles when Matusz, Jones, Wieters, Tillman etc all come up at the same time? Look at the Tigers, they spent a ton of money poorly. Now their team is losing millions of dollars a year and probably has to start shedding salary soon. They tried to play Yankee ball and lost. When you have one team spending at the level of the Yankees it throws off the curve for everyone else. That is what I am talking about here. There is no parity in FA, the Yankees have made sure of that. And when you have two or three teams that can virtually buy up anyone they want, that puts the rest of the teams in the league at a competitive disadvantage. If one contract busts for the Yankees it doesn't matter - they can spend more money to replace it. Again, look at how the Tigers spent money and it has largely blown up in their faces that is what should happen to teams that take that risk. I guess that is what my argument boils down to: Risk. The Yankees spend so much money that they can absorb an insane amount of risk. They can take monetary risks that no other team can take. And they have done it a level that it has greatly affected the salary structure of the rest of the league. Therefore, one team has indeed greatly changed the game and will only continue to do so if left unchecked.
  5. 1 point
    http://www.orioleshangout.com/article.asp?ID=2323 Too much talent not to give him a healthy place in our top prospect list.
  6. 1 point
    http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/columnists/starkey/s_648240.html Maybe this belongs in the MLB forum, but it definitely pertains to the Orioles. One of the (many) ongoing arguments on this site is the payroll the O’s are able to afford. Many people point to the Twins, Rays etc and say we don’t need a $100 million payroll to succeed. While that is true, it’s not a necessity.. it really hurts your chances. I’m not saying we need to go sign a bunch of crappy veterans to get our payroll over $100 million, but unless we start signing premium talent (which will invariably increase our payroll).. it’s going to be MUCH harder to get to the promised land. I know this isn’t groundbreaking stuff, but it’s amazing the difference between the haves and have-nots in MLB.
  7. 1 point
    Death seed blind mans greed Poets starving children bleed Nothing hes got he really needs Twenty first century schizoid man.
  8. 1 point
    If you'll be my bodyguard I can be your long lost pal I can call you Betty And Betty when you call me You can call me Al
  9. 1 point
    IT'S NOT ABOUT SALARY IMBALANCES! IT'S ABOUT THE REVENUE IMBALANCES THAT CREATE THEM! Sports leagues, by their very definition, are inherently socialist structures. Major League Baseball is the only sports league that I'm aware of that tries to operate on an every-man-for-himself capitalist model. (I know MLB has made vast strides with "new revenues", but "old revenues" [gate, local broadcast] are barely shared at all.) A salary cap without revenue sharing simply makes the Yankee$ more profitable. And that's good for no one but the $teingrabber family. I know I get very Trea-like on this issue, but on the internet, no one can stop you if they've heard this one before, so here goes. At least 85% of local revenues go into the general fund and are shared out equally. End the unbalanced schedule. End interleague play. End divisions. Best four teams from each league advance to their respective post-seasons. There are a number of smaller points to my program, but those are the biggies.
  10. 1 point
    I guess we just have different opinions of what comprises a good solution. For me, a good solution is one that is over 99% accurate, and probably moreso.
  11. 1 point
    OMG...really? What arguments have I been avoiding? I think I've taken on most head on...and for most of these 10 pages it's been about caps. Sorry if I havent digested and dissected every word YOU have written...but stop painting it like I'm dodging something. Think I've done pretty good job of standing up here and going toe to toe with the group--for right and wrong--and not ignoring anyone. A few things slip thru the cracks. If you want me to talk about revenue sharing...I will...just ask me. I'm not hiding from you or your points. What would you like to talk about revenue sharing...it's a flawed system... You can talk about increasing it but if teams are not required to put it towards payroll, I see no reason why the Yanks/Sox of the world should be paying to line the coffers of a cheap owner. If a more viable system can be put in place, I'm willing to hear it out...it's certainly a better solution then a cap.
  12. 1 point
    On principle, yes. Altho, I think the nature of the sport makes this far more impactful...contracts are shorter and can easily be gotten out of. Plus, since it is a sport that relies so heavily on physicality it is easier to be dominant.
  13. 1 point
    Exactly how is limiting the available playoff spots indirectly affecting a team? Seems to be directly affecting their chances of making the postseason.
  14. 1 point
    I think in addition it does affect teams outside of the AL East. The teams being scavenged are greatly affected as well. See the Brewers/CC Sabathia. I don't think this is exclusively an AL East problem.
  15. 1 point
    I guess I'll take that milk-steak to go.
  16. 1 point
    That is true when you look at a window from a year to year basis. But the point remains this: When these team's players reach FA they usually become too expensive and the mid-market teams in the central can no-longer afford them so they go to the larger markets or get traded away before they reach FA. The point remains they can not hold on to them. You don't think there is anything wrong with that, I find that troubling.
  17. 1 point
    If only Ozzie had made the WOW offer...
  18. 1 point
    But see, you are missing the point. The point is that all of that has changed now. This creature we are seeing today is something very very new. We are in a league where the number 1 payroll team plays the (MLB) number 18,16 and 25 payroll teams 54 times a year and only has to play the (MLB) number 4 payroll team six times. What are you going to say when the Yankees finally win that title with this payroll? Because it is going to happen sooner or later. Probably this year, then what will the excuse be? What is going to happen when the Yankees snatch up Lackey? They could, they might Going back to two divisions with a balanced schedule might help. But it will never happen, owners will never allow it. Why? The only reason the Twins, Indians and Tigers have a chance year in and year out is that they are not in the same division as the Yankees and Sox.
  19. 1 point
    Don't mind if I do...
  20. 1 point
    The problem is that some teams in baseball have a salary cap and some don't. Its not a firm salary cap, but the lack of revenue sharing across the sport make it so that the Yankees can afford a $250M payroll, other teams can sit in the $80-120M range, and some teams can't go much over $50M.In football every team is playing with the same budget, and its a matter of spending that budget in the smartest way possible. And also coaching and team strategy is orders of magnitude more important in football than it is in baseball, so you see wider swings. Its like running an auction-style fantasy league. Some people spend big on a few top guys and fill the rest of their squad out with lower priced players. Others spread the money out more evenly. But regardless of either approach, the best thing to do is to be really smart, diligent, or just lucky and find the players who's performance will outperform their cost. If you can be much smarter than the teams that can outspend you, then you can compete with them. But its not like there are morons running the teams that do have the money. What the big difference between the haves and have nots is the margin for error. The Red Sox or Yankees can take a big gamble on a guy for a $50-60M contract and if they don't work out (Pavano, Lugo) they can just dump them. The sunk cost doesn't affect the team. But if a team with an $80M payroll has a guy who is making $14M dollars a year go belly-up, they are pretty much screwed.
  21. 1 point
    Nothing happening folks. I asked if there were any ongoing conversations and I was told that it was nothing more than agents trying to get their players on other teams. That happens everyday in the NFL. Maybe this guy on the other message boards knows something I don't.
  22. 1 point
    I couldn't agree more. And certainly didn't mean to imply otherwise. I think the talent added with the money saved was far greater than the difference between Hobgood and the other prep arms. Now, there's a good argument that we should have enough to sign, say, Matzek AND those other overslots. But that's a different argument. I supported the trade-off that the O's did w/ Hobgood 100%.
  23. 1 point
    This seems like an overreaction. Crawdad's not being disrespectful to anyone. He's saying that secondary sources can't really get a good grip on a kid's intangibles. Nothing wrong or inaccurate with that. I certainly believe Jordan when he says that Hobgood has good intangibles, but that doesn't mean that I know that Hobgood has good intangibles. It means that I know that Jordan thinks that Hobgood has good intangibles. Every time an opinion gets filtered through more layers, it becomes less reliable.If I go and tell a buddy of mine who is asking about the guy we drafted in the first round this year about Hobgood's good intangibles, that's then at least tertiary information, not even a secondary source. It gets less and less reliable the further it gets from the primary source. I think that is what crawdad is trying to say here.
  24. 1 point
    I really have no idea where you are coming from with this. I do not know why you are making this unfairly personal. Again my statement is that the ability to measure intangibles has far less definition than the ability of scouts to measure other skills (i.e. mechanics, build, spin, etc.). I stand by that statement. That is not disrespecting Joe.
  25. 1 point
    Who are 46 baseball players that have never been in my kitchen? Cheers!!!!
  26. 1 point
    Mauer is not a free agent this year. Look, the Yankees have an advantage. Nobody is denying that. But it's not about risk. It's about the nature of baseball. The Yankees can spend a gazillion dollars on Sabathia...but he's simply not going to be that much better than a Lincecum...not that much better than Ubaldo Jimenez. And when Lincecum comes up, they can spend a gazillion dollars and grab him...then it's up to the Giants to go and find another arm (something they should have been doing all along)... This isn't sneaking up on anyone...it's frustrating...but there's no need to go and change the rules. You no exactly when your players are going to get raises, exactly when they will be free agents...and in most case you know whether they will test the market or you can extend them. The nature of this sport...the way it's played...means you can buy an all-star team and still lose to a bunch of young, talented kids. Football is not like that, basketball, soccer...sports that rely on physicality. But not baseball. Sure it helps, it's a big advantage. But it's not impossible. We just happen to be in the worst spot.
  27. 1 point
    I don't think payroll is a big issue with the Orioles. They could and I believe will spend $100+ million on payroll if given the chance but when you've had 12 losing seasons in a row the kind of players you spend that kind of money on aren't interested in coming. The trick for MacPhail is to get this team good enough that the losing reputation is replaced with the profile of a team and organization on the rise. Then maybe they can pick off one or two of these big time free agents and really get over the hump but getting to that "up and coming" point is going to have to be done, largely, with homegrown talent.
  28. 1 point
    That's all fine and dandy but the majority of those teams can afford to keep that homegrown talent with huge multimillion dollar contracts and they can supplement that talent with even more free agent signings. Just a quick glance but some of those teams have the following contracts: LAD: Manny 25m for 2009, Jason Schmidt 12m for 2009, Kuroda 10m for 2009, Juan Pierre 10m for 2009, Vicente Padilla 12m for 2009 PHI: Ryan Howard 15m for 2009, Brad Lidge 11.5m for 2009, Chase Utley 11m for 2009, Brett Myers 12m for 2009 LAA: Torii Hunter 17.5m for 2009, Vlad 15m for 2009, Kelvim Escobar 9.5m for 2009, Gary Matthews Jr 10m for 2009, John Lackey 9m for 2009, Brian Fuentes 8.5m for 2009 NYY: Arod 32m for 2009, CC 14m for 2009, Tex 20m for 2009, Jeter 20m for 2009, Burnett 16.5m for 2009, M. Rivera 15m for 2009, Posada 13.1m for 2009, Damon 13m for 2009, Matsui 13m for 2009 Should I keep going? What other teams besides these select few can afford to give players contracts like that and keep their homegrown players?
  29. 1 point
    <img src=http://img.snlarc.jt.org/caps/characters/WiFo-The%20Falconer.jpg></img>
  30. 1 point
    Safe for work cartoon http://www.bangcartoon.com/2009/skirt.htm
  31. 1 point
    That's only 5 or 6 players on each 25 man roster?
  32. 1 point
  33. 1 point
  34. 1 point
    Sorry, who has EVER said that there is parity in MLB?
  35. 1 point
    Greeting cards! I have to sign at least 2 or 3 a week for people in my office and nobody just signs them, they all write cutesy little sayings. What the heck am I supposed to say to somebody on the other side of the building who I barely know who just got a tooth pulled?
  36. 1 point
    My three reasons: 1. It costs a fortune for ACC schools to send non-revenue generating sports back and forth to Boston, and every away game for BC teams is always going to be far away. The bulk of a team’s schedule, no matter what sport, is played in-conference. It doesn't really make sense for BC to not play the bulk of their schedule against Pitt, Rutgers, Connecticut, Syracuse, Cincinnati etc. 2. By virtue of what the Big East has done with basketball, they can't possibly expand Big East football to play a conference title game unless some of the basketball only schools move to division 1, which doesn't seem likely right now. Adding more schools will cut the basketball revenue pie into too small a piece for each school. Do you want to share with 11 others, or share with 19 others? 3. Can BC and some other ACC school ever really generate a rivalry that will transcend the ages? I say no. Their closest would be rival is Maryland. Part of the heat in a rivalry game is the fact that the two rival schools are close together. Students from opposing schools can travel.
  37. 1 point
    We understand your position. You think that "the human element", whatever that means, is vastly more important than making baseball a contest between two teams on the field. Technology is to a point where it's more accurate than a human could be, you don't care and keep feeding us this nonsensical line that a little bit of persistence and training will magically make umps orders of magnitude better, offering no proof, then ripping us for not believing you. We know technology can get us there. And while you think there are other ways to get there without spoiling the timeless charm of the game of your youth, you are the only person I've ever encountered with your opinion. Everyone else I've ever heard or read who is against technological solutions just accepts that egregious errors are part of the game. Sorry, but I know the technology, and its capabilities. The door has already been opened to bring technology into sports. There's no going back, it's essentially inevitable that it'll be used to a greater extent in the future. Even if you're right, it'll be far easier to gradually implement technological solutions than to completely overhaul the umps, their attitudes, their skills, and their union. I'm not a betting man, and you'll probably be dead by this time anyway, but I'll be flat-out stunned if there isn't a greater reliance in technology in umpiring in 10, 20, 30 years and beyond. I'd be really surprised if there isn't a greater reliance on technology just as a result of the poor umpiring this offseason.
  38. 1 point
    I've been a life long Dodgers fan, second only to the Orioles....I just wish, this once they could get the World Series.....I assume they will lose to the Phillies, and I assume it will be off several Jayson Werth HRs...but thats just me.... Come on LA.....
  39. 1 point
    That's okay. Thanks for the correction! I qualified my post because I thought I remembered something about a change, but couldn't find anything to back that up. I should've known to dig through the Orioles Hangout instead of the rest of the World Wide Web!
  40. 1 point
    Tony, you are pretty easily offended. I posted my remark that was quoted above before Erbe's ranking came out, so I had no idea how high Erbe would be ranked or what you would say about him. My comment that "I still feel Erbe sometimes doesn't get the credit he deserves around here" wasn't directed at you in particular, or anyone on the OH staff, but the opinion on Erbe in general on the board. I made it clear as I can that "I have no basis to question the assessment of the quality of his pitches," so what more do you want me to say? For the record, I'm fine with Erbe being ranked 7th, the highest I could have imagined would have been 6th. And I don't have one negiative thing to say about your report on Erbe. As usual, it's a very informative report, well- supported, and I find it pretty encouraging.
  41. 1 point
    Bump... Was just browsing through old threads. Looks like the Ravens nailed the Qb rankings. Also, we get some of the greatest OldFanisms all in one thread. Enjoy.
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00

Orioles Information

Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports


2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats

  • Create New...