Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sports Guy

Theo Epstein

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Aren't they cutting coaches (according to the coaches) over a couple hundred K?

We know the O's left more unspent than any other team.  We know they went with a signability choice at 1-2.

The coaching thing is a legitimate sign of budget constraints.    I don’t buy the draft thing.    

Back on point, I don’t think budget constraints right now are really a sign of bad or stingy ownership.    Let’s face it, 2020 was no picnic for the baseball owners, and 2021 may not be, either.   It’s not surprising that many teams - not just the Orioles - are looking for ways to cut costs.    But I don’t think that impacted the draft, and I doubt it impacted international spending, either.   
 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frobby said:

The coaching thing is a legitimate sign of budget constraints.    I don’t buy the draft thing.    

Back on point, I don’t think budget constraints right now are really a sign of bad or stingy ownership.    Let’s face it, 2020 was no picnic for the baseball owners, and 2021 may not be, either.   It’s not surprising that many teams - not just the Orioles - are looking for ways to cut costs.    But I don’t think that impacted the draft, and I doubt it impacted international spending, either.   
 

I don’t see how eliminating an entire minor-league team is not a valid excuse for getting rid of some coaches. You’re eliminating an entire team, to include all of the coaching positions that would accrue to that team.

And with the restructuring of the system, it’s a logical that some positions would become superfluous. I think it’s a stretch to call it parsimony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

If he isn't able to spend his full allotment than he isn't able to truly implement his international signing plan.

One leads directly to another.

As to why they might limit his spending, that's simple, it's their money.

We know the following.

Elias didn't spend all his allotment on the draft.

Elias didn't spend all his allotment on the International market.

According to the two coaches in question they were let go because of money.

The O's consolidated the ML pitching coach and director of pitching positions which is almost assuredly saving them money.

 

I can see cutting ML spending as close to the bone as possible when a team isn't in contention.  But the draft, the International market, and coaching are areas they should be spending on.

Yeah, I think you're reaching here.  Not every penny needs to be spent for what he needs to do.  It's not like he's not been able to sign picks and expand the international market.

A prudent exercise would be to look to see how many teams spend every last dime of their international budgets and draft budgets.  But I really don't care that much to look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Philip said:

I don’t see how eliminating an entire minor-league team is not a valid excuse for getting rid of some coaches. You’re eliminating an entire team, to include all of the coaching positions that would accrue to that team.

And with the restructuring of the system, it’s a logical that some positions would become superfluous. I think it’s a stretch to call it parsimony.

Wow!    Insert dreamy eyes emoticon 😍.  Your thread posts are alike to good prose with not an ounce of superfluity!    And all written whilst wearing a smoking jacket with a glass of merlot in one hand!  Here here!  👏

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corn,

You have been been vocal about Orioles' management and finances for years.  In general I agree that the Orioles need to spend money to acquire talent, both in the draft and internationally.  Previously ownership has restricted the teams ability to do that.

 

But the current argument really doesn't make sense.  IF the Orioles "restricted" the draft spending pool by 200K or so and the Orioles still signed 6 players.  I would think that was a win.  IF your thoughts are that the Orioles should have spent the extra 200K even if it meant they only signed 4 players...that's fine too.  Either way you argue it, it seems that Elias is the one who made the choice and it would seem to me that his choice was to get as much talent as possible for the full allotment.  Which he clearly did successfully.  

Whether that pays off is certainly debatable.  I just don't see the hand wringing over 200K.  Chris Davis made that much while you read this reply.

Also, the financial implications of Covid are real and I do not doubt that if fans are kept out of games next spring, that teams will continue to cut expenses.  Not just the Orioles.

It remains to be seen if the Sons will or can spend.  I think you and anyone else is correct to remain cautious as to their plans.  But it seems that Elias is getting pretty wide run to implement his plan.  200K unspent doesn't really change that in my opinion.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2020 at 9:55 AM, Can_of_corn said:

I'm not saying they are as bad, just that the purse strings appear to be a lot tighter.

The purse strings are tight for some of the most profitable teams in baseball.  It's really unfair to say this as if there isn't extreme uncertainties in the coming year and beyond. That being said, the calculus hasn't changed in terms of the International market. They are in no obligation to spend all of their money on low upside, older teenagers just because they have those slots. Their timeline for when they said they will be competing for the high dollar prospects still hasn't arrived. When that time arrives and they are not landing the big name prospects then I will be right with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, foxfield said:

Corn,

You have been been vocal about Orioles' management and finances for years.  In general I agree that the Orioles need to spend money to acquire talent, both in the draft and internationally.  Previously ownership has restricted the teams ability to do that.

 

But the current argument really doesn't make sense.  IF the Orioles "restricted" the draft spending pool by 200K or so and the Orioles still signed 6 players.  I would think that was a win.  IF your thoughts are that the Orioles should have spent the extra 200K even if it meant they only signed 4 players...that's fine too.  Either way you argue it, it seems that Elias is the one who made the choice and it would seem to me that his choice was to get as much talent as possible for the full allotment.  Which he clearly did successfully.  

Whether that pays off is certainly debatable.  I just don't see the hand wringing over 200K.  Chris Davis made that much while you read this reply.

Also, the financial implications of Covid are real and I do not doubt that if fans are kept out of games next spring, that teams will continue to cut expenses.  Not just the Orioles.

It remains to be seen if the Sons will or can spend.  I think you and anyone else is correct to remain cautious as to their plans.  But it seems that Elias is getting pretty wide run to implement his plan.  200K unspent doesn't really change that in my opinion.

 

tenor.gif?itemid=10841902

Yes, and to piggyback on @RZNJ's point, taking Elias/ownership to task on saving 200k on 13 million is a bit much.  I'd be pissed if we'd spent, like, 8 out of 13 million, but that's not the case here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

tenor.gif?itemid=10841902

Yes, and to piggyback on @RZNJ's point, taking Elias/ownership to task on saving 200k on 13 million is a bit much.  I'd be pissed if we'd spent, like, 8 out of 13 million, but that's not the case here.

I think the more likely scenario is that Elias was given a certain amount to spend on both the draft and the international free agents with the freedom to divide it as he saw fit.  So he cut 200K from the draft and X.XX from the International class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think the more likely scenario is that Elias was given a certain amount to spend on both the draft and the international free agents with the freedom to divide it as he saw fit.  So he cut 200K from the draft and X.XX from the International class.

I think the more likely scenario is that you're just straight up wrong, homie.  

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think the more likely scenario is that Elias was given a certain amount to spend on both the draft and the international free agents with the freedom to divide it as he saw fit.  So he cut 200K from the draft and X.XX from the International class.

You really think ownership cut 200K from draft and he magically drafted, signed and spent 13+million and kept the 200K dry.  Really? 

 

And if you do?  Don't you think we have the most amazing GM in baseball history?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, foxfield said:

You really think ownership cut 200K from draft and he magically drafted, signed and spent 13+million and kept the 200K dry.  Really? 

 

And if you do?  Don't you think we have the most amazing GM in baseball history?

That isn't what I said.  I'll try again with more numbers.

The O's draft pool was $13,894,300.

The O's International pool was $5,899,600.

What I am positing is that ownership told Elias he had a budget of *hypothetically* 17.5 Million out of the total allotment of $19,793,900.

Elias chose to cut 200K from the draft and ~2M from the International pool.

Now I'm obviously making up the International numbers since I haven't seen a total spent.

It is also possible that other spending falls under this umbrella, maybe he's just given a total budget for everything and he has the choice to make decisions on what gets spent where. 

The overall idea is the same, that the budget given to him by ownership does not allow him to spend fully in these areas.  I think it unlikely that Elias would chose to not spend money on the draft or International players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've already been given the reasoning by Elias why he might not have spent his entire allotment on the international side.   The O's are playing catchup on the big money guys who have committed to teams years in advance.   He has pretty much said he's not going to spend the money just to spend it.   

Now, your theory is just that with nothing really to back it up besides the fact that the Orioles did not spend their entire allotment in both areas.   I just think your theory looks silly, in particular, on the amateur draft side.    You're suggesting that Elias didn't have the full allotment available or had to suck 200K of that money to spend on the international side and in doing so drafted differently than he would have with the extra 200K.    I can't disprove your theory because such things are pretty much unprovable.   If Elias were to come out and debunk your theory I don't believe you would accept that either.   So, have fun with your theory.    

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

I think the more likely scenario is that you're just straight up wrong, homie.  

Ditto.   But we’ll never know.   

I’ll just say this: build me a good team worth rooting for.   Do that and I don’t care exactly what you spend and where you spend it.   Draft or sign players who turn into good major leaguers and I don’t give a damn if you spent your allotment or not.   Spend it all with crappy results and I won’t be saying “at least they spent all the available money.”    
 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

The O's draft pool was $13,894,300.

The O's International pool was $5,899,600.

Don't know if we'll see the INTL numbers, but to me 2/138ths gets to be a rounding error and 2/6ths doesn't.  Though I'm not totally clear on if with this international pool we were still all on leftovers, in which case I could conceivably understand an unutilized $2M.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • Hays needs to be able to stay healthy for a season or he might just end up being the Nolan Reimold of the 2020's Orioles. 
    • The Rule V thing is a wellspring for me of the bigger Santander enthusiasm. We'll see what kind of dance teams dance about stuff like...Gosh, Adley and Yusniel missed development so they can't break in for a long while yet, but Rule V is a similarly big obstacle (maybe worse if you buy in to the trope too early exposure to stuff in The Show can "ruin" a guy), so he's perhaps developmentally younger, and there's a fair bit of delta on the medium-term projection if Santander's 2020 performance can count as "baseball 24" even though he was 25.
    • Fair enough..Wildcard tends to have these completely over the top takes based off of SSS that just don’t make sense.     His use of the word should Deserves to be called out imo.  
    • My point has nothing to do with the relative merits of your prognostication, or of Wildcards. It has to do with you finding it necessary to be kinda nasty in criticizing Wildcard's speculation, and then immediately speculating on the same subject. I don't care whether you disagree with him. It just seemed a few notches over the top to me.
    • Should means that if Santander had a slash line of 280/325/500, hit 25 homers and drove in 85, Wildcard is saying he would be disappointed in that season. If I had to guess, 90+% of Orioles fans would sign up for that season for him right now.  That would likely exceed or meet most projections and predictions of him.  Yet Wildcard would say, he should have done better. Thats an over the top take to have on him. No one, outside of maybe Santanders family, would say he should do that and if he doesn’t, it’s a disappointment.     I am expecting him to be in line with what has done in his career with some slight improvements. I think it’s fair to have those expectations.  
    • o   Lindy McDaniel died.  McDaniel was one month short of his 85th birthday. The cause of death was the COVID virus.   I remember McDaniel when he pitched for the Yankees in the early 70's. He pitched for 21 Major League seasons, from 1955 through 1975. The versatile McDaniel won 141 games, was credited with 174 Saves, led the National League in Saves 3 times (1959, 1960, and 1963), and led the National League in Winning Percentage in 1960 (.750.) In 1970 at the age of 34 he had 29 Saves, a 2.01 ERA, and an 0.994 WHIP for the 2nd-Place Yankees (93-69.)   o
    • Translation: I realize it was an attempt at being witty, but I didn't like it.   "should be" and "expect" are both speculative statements. Neither really required any smarmy condemnation.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...