Jump to content


Plus Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


hoosiers last won the day on August 26 2019

hoosiers had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

800 Triple-A

About hoosiers

  • Rank
    Plus Member
  • Birthday 8/18/1968

Personal Information

  • Location
    New Jersey
  • Homepage
  • Interests
    Sports, Os, IU athletics
  • Occupation
    Senior Vice President of Finance
  • Favorite Current Oriole
    Matt Wieters

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I really haven't changed my opinion that the punishment is a bit harsh because I don't believe MLB has done a sufficient job of investigating other organizations. There are rumors out about camera based cheating on the Dodgers and NYY besides the BoSox and the Astros. I have seen the Jays mentioned as cheaters in addition to the Os suspicions of the Jays. I feel bad for the Rays and the Indians. IMO, the vocal players on these teams hint shows the disgust on how things went down (the other team cheated and by implication their team didn't). If the Astros were the only team doing this, then I would change my mind that the penalty wasn't harsh enough and that some players should be fined, suspended or thrown out of the game. Would love to see the players' union defend the cheaters while also representing a majority of players super-pissed at the cheaters. I posted earlier. The owner, GM and manager of every MLB team should have to sign a statement saying there was no camera/technology based cheating in their organization for the past five seasons. Penalties ought to be severe for anyone signing that paper who turns out to be a liar.
  2. Who else cheated? Didn't the Os think for most of Buck's time here that Toronto was cheating with their sign stealing when we were on the road there?
  3. I think this cheating is way more pervasive than just the Astros and Red Sox (and I see the blurb that the NYY and LAD cheated as well) so I believe the punishment is too harsh. Folks want an asterisk for this Houston cheating when others were doing it too? I disagree. Losing high draft picks in consecutive years almost certainly brings up the real possibility that the Astros will be uncompetitive in four to six years. The punishment is so unjust - skewering Luhnow when he didn't know it was going on, but sparing the players who cooked up and implemented the system. Typical Manfred. As I posted before, in the spirit of the Sarbanes-Oxley compliance implemented by accounting firms over 15 years ago, I would like to see the owner, GM and head coach of every MLB team sign a document saying they are unaware of technology (camera) aided cheating on their current team or any team they have been a part of for the past five seasons. Offer a reduced penalty for those who admit to cheating and a severe penalty (including lifetieme bans) for those who sign that document and are later found to be cheaters. I think that would go a long way to understanding how pervasive this cheating is/was.
  4. For all of the cheating that goes on in baseball, this punishment seems unbelievably harsh. The folks who came up with and implemented the scheme get away scot-free while the unaware GM gets fired because he is the guy at the top. The lost draft picks have enormous value. That said, I do believe that any baseball cheating that does not involve the 25 man MLB roster and the coaches (anything that is not old fashion sign stealing) should involve a punishment. Any cheating that occurs with a camera on the catcher or the base coaches should be punishable IMO. I would like to see MLB have the owner, GM and coach of each organization sign a statement that they are unaware and have not participated in any cheating scheme of any sort.
  5. They get to Bmore when they get there. It would seem that we should have a steady stream of quality prospects and major league ready players from the international talent pool consistent with most other organizations in baseball starting around 2024-2026 depending on how good the guys we sign in this current period and the next one are. As long as we get there, right? Timing should be in the pre-free agent years of most of our current top prospects.
  6. It is impossible to underscore the significance of where we are today and what we are building toward … and the impact on our minor league talent. I know there were a couple of times in the last 10 years when we thought we might be at a similar crossroads with additional scouts and funding coming down the road with AM contemplating guys like Sano and DD's background and FredF's recommended big $ signing bonuses. I don't mean to disparage those efforts and the promise they once held because I believe it was largely PA who held us back from being a league average effort internationally. This time, we have appear to have real experts with real relationships, the build out of a quality scouting group, a reduction in top $ investments made by MLB, and a real commitment by ownership. Even now, it is encouraging that the right people in right international markets know that we are players NOW with real $ to spend if they have the prospects. Perez lays down the gauntlet/line in the sand: our J2 2021 class as one where we will get at least our fair share of guys at the top of the market (IMO, that means 1 top 30 guy and another guy in the next 30). It doesn't seem to require too much hope that we appear to be a year and a half away from that reality! By far, the most encouraging article of the offseason IMO and a significant development for our next competitive team.
  7. We should be the 755. I am going to say we will have 7 years of being competitive to the point of a .500 year (567 wins) or better (40 more wins), and three mediocre years coming up where we will total 50, 60 and 70 wins. Ballpark, that puts me around 787 - so I will predict 790.
  8. I understand extending players just fine, but I would not do it with Mountcastle or Hays. I would rather see one year of quality production and then offer a longer term deal. Especially with Hays given his age - it makes the urgency and the buying out of peak production years less urgent IMO.
  9. Not sure if I recall this study, but I doubt the conclusion was that international spending was inefficient overall. Especially given how AM attempted to expand our international scouting and spend. I do remember that AM set in motion a policy that US scouts check out the international prospects at some point. Most likely, the study concluded that spending at the top of the international market was inefficient.
  10. I think the service time manipulation occurs with top prospects to a much greater degree than other rookies. And if not stm, then the top prospects are signing long term contracts like Jimenez and Kingery.
  11. Who do you expect the Orioles to sign in the free agent market? We are projected as a bottom 3 team this year - so who is chomping at the bit to get a chance to play for Baltimore? Theoretically, winning the bidding on a free agent player means outbidding everyone else - by nature overpaying. And why sign a quality free agent or two if it is going to get us three or four wins and make our draft position worse. And signing a free agent might block the growth of a young player/prospect - are you going to sign an OFer or 1B to possibly block Hays, Santander, Diaz, Sisco, Ruiz and others? If a free agent falls through and comes cheap enough, perhaps we can sign and later trade that player, but this happens fairly infrequently. The best value for players that might net prospects in trade is in the bullpen or on older, blocked or failed prospects like Ruiz. The Rays and As are active in the free agent market because they are competitive.
  12. I thought Ruiz was an absolute steal when we picked him up and I am eager to see the incremental improvement to make him an average everyday major league 3B with the potential for more. Santander looks poised to be an above average producer. Really interested in the performances of Martin, Means and a couple of others on this list.
  13. So if GrayRod and DHall both have to undergo TJ surgery and AR has a degenerative hip condition and retires in two years, are you still going to fire current management in 2023 if the major league team is not winning? What if we still have a top 5 farm system? What if Elias has pulled off some good trades and the team looks poised to compete in 2025? You will let him go based on your 2019 'line in the sand' regardless of extenuating circumstances?
  14. You can break down the cost numbers a bit further by backing out our draft spend and out international spend. After that, we may know what the GM and manager make, but we really don't have a good idea of total headcount in domestic and international scouting, the analytics group and the rest of the headcount on payroll. Also, on the revenue side, remember that in 2018, despite the years covered in the recent ruling, the RSC has determined the Os and Nats were each shorted about $15M in TV rights fees - which would have made the Orioles profitable as an entity.
  15. I don't think anyone here has advocated for an open ended commitment to management or suggested that the goal here is to do anything but to build a winner at the major league level. It is just difficult IMO to put a specific time frame/year of competitiveness on this thing. We live in a very competitive division that, entering last season, projected to host three of the top 10 teams in baseball. The Blue Jays are on the rise and can put out a payroll north of $160M quite easily. I do expect a winner in Baltimore with the likelihood of playoff appearances around 2023/2024, but it is hardly a given so I would not commit to throwing out management because they simply did not build a winner by a specific year because it depends on the circumstances.
  • Create New...