geschinger
-
Posts
4176 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
24
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by geschinger
-
-
12 hours ago, Malike said:
He's right, it is a good investment. I don't think any baseball team has ever lost money in a sale, even if it happened to be a terrible org.
No idea if accurate or not but on podcast I listened to recently David Samon (former Marlins Presiden) and John Skipper (former ESPN President) were arguing buying the O's was a bad investment for Angelos. They were discussing if there should be concern about the low sale price and that Angelos would have done significantly better financially if he had put the purchase price into the S&P 500 instead of buying the Orioles.
-
1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:
They also had their owner die.
His death was not the trigger for the payroll dump and running afoul of the debt service requirements. Although his health was almost certainly why they went all-in as much as they did.
I don't think they are a good example of what can be done in a given market if you engage your fans in a way that communicates we are invested and doing all we can to win. The revenue from the attendance increase didn't come anywhere close to covering their increased spending.
-
7 hours ago, Bemorewins said:
Yet SD spends more in a "smaller market", resigns stars, and signs other stars in FA, and has one of the top attendance figures in the sport. They drew over 3 million people last year with their "small market". I believe that they are an example of what can be done in a given market if you engage your fans in a way that communicates we are invested and doing all we can to win.
I'm not sure the Padres are a great example. They've had to dump ~50m in payroll this offseason to get in line with MLB's debt service rules.
-
My guess if Elias was allowed to do what wanted is that eventually, payroll would settle in at a ~$150-$160m range in today's dollars.
-
4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
Netflix just paid 5 billion for the rights to air RAW for 10 years.
Somehow, I don't see them or any of the streaming services getting into the bidding for a team like the Seattle Mariners' non-nationally broadcast schedule.
-
20 minutes ago, TopGunnar said:
It’s a great deal if he becomes a star face of the franchise. $30 mill a year in 7 years is going to be a steal
Escalation is a lot less sure than it was a few years ago with the implosion of regional sports networks revenues. Teams could be in for a rude awakening as existing contracts expire.
-
27 minutes ago, ThisIsBirdland said:
This Witt structure may very well be the only way to get Boras clients to agree to the long-term deals.
Buy 3 additional years of control (7 total) by offering an additional 4 years of player opt outs at the current market rate as security for the player.
Not sure it's the right long-term strategy for the team or not. As a fan I'd like to see it (hey, it's not my money) but I can't say I'd blame the team if they didn't think that trade-off was necessarily worth it. It might just be better to negotiate a more conventional extension once these guys hit FA.
I know it's necessary, but I really dislike that many options. It makes practical roster construction difficult for a team w/o unlimited payroll. You only have to account for that extra 150m if he's a disappointment and not worthy of having on the roster.
-
38 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
There are a few…Alex Kiriloff immediately jumps to mind.
I still maintain that there is zippy chance these 2 turn down extensions as long as they are FA before they turn 30.
It's less likely, but Machado is a good comp on why either should consider turning it down if they are risk takers.
Sign the massive deal at 26 with the opt-out to give you the ability to get an even bigger yearly salary and more years at their absolute peak (~age 30). And if they haven't performed, they still have a massive payday to take them into their mid-30s.
The Machado approach will earn the player tens of millions, if not more than any extension followed by FA by 30.
-
6 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:
The bigger issue for me is if they're going to spend to keep their own talent. I am admittedly attached to Adley but I can see a scenario where it makes sense to let him walk.
But not ponying up to keep guys like Gunnar, Holliday, Basallo, or whatever guys really step up and become core, indispensable players to a team that's always in the playoffs will be pretty inexcusable. Like, you don't draft and develop a guy like Gunnar, IMO, to see him walk at the first opportunity. The Braves have locked up their core for awhile and should be contenders well into the last half of this decade, there's no reason we shouldn't be able to do the same.
In summary, not spending in FA...kind of stupid not to, but whatever. But not spending to extend some of these guys? A bit ridiculous.
I hope they are exploring extending someone like Gunnar now. I'm not sure I see the case for extending Adley as unless he is risk averse it doesn't make sense for him, and it doesn't make sense for the Orioles to go the number of years he'll get on the FA market considering his age and position.
If Elias was not held back by Angelos, I'd be very surprised if his approach to young talent would differ from the approach Houston has taken. Try to extend players but be willing to walk away if it would require committing well past the players prime age years.
Gunnar is in a situation that is prime for a win/win extension. 7-8 years so he gets paid now and he's still in line to get a silly money FA contract from someone else as a ~29-30-year-old.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:
Didn't the O's just get offered 600M from the State?
A new stadium equated to ~$40m increase in gate receipts for the Rangers. What is $600m in improvements to Camden Yards going to equate to an increase in gate receipts to the Orioles? Can't say I've seen any estimates or guesses on that.
-
1 minute ago, Pickles said:
They also just had a billion dollar stadium built for them by taxpayers. That was what funded their lavish spending.
No doubt, their gate receipts for the years prior to opening the new stadium hovered in the 75m range and they were 115m in 2022.
-
3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
I think you are missing the point I was trying to make.
It was stated as an "indisputable fact" that 20M spent on outside players would result in 20M not being available to retain players. I used the increase in attendance (and other revenue streams) of the Padres as evidence that the fact could and should be disputed.
If you spent 20M on outside players and they increase revenue by 5 million the actual cost is 15 million.
That's it. I'm not advocating doing what the Padres did.
Just saying that what was proclaimed an "indisputable fact" isn't.
How much is the Rangers' revenue going to increase due to their free agent spending last offseason?
Gothca. I will be interested to see what the Rangers revenue increase ends up being. They increased payroll by ~60m and increased attendance by 500k. Is that a net gain or net loss for the bottom line and their ability to raiser payroll further to retain some of their young talent.
-
14 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Which is why, to me, getting Cease makes sense. It’s why going after one of the Seattle pitchers makes sense. It’s about bringing in lower cost arms with big upside.
I don’t want to spend 5+ years on Nola. I don’t want any starter available for more than 3 years unless the AAV is way less (which isn’t happening). And part of the reason for that is exact thing @Pickles is talking about.
But to act as if a 3/60 deal or something like that means they can’t keep their core long term is an absurd statement.
Agreed, I'm just not sure the type of pitcher that we think would be a good target at 3/60 is not going to end up getting 5/100 if the market overheats again. I'd much rather see them go after one of the Seattle pitchers or other younger options. I have little interest in seeing the Orioles commit more than 2-3 years to someone exiting or already having exited their peak age years.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
But it isn't.
You are assuming that the players signed don't increase revenue. The Padres aren't the best example considering their issues but you can't deny that bringing in outside talent caused an increase in revenue. At one point they were on the receiving end of profit sharing, last season they were second in attendance. Their attendance last year was up over a million from a decade ago.
What good is an increase in revenue if it comes at the expense of costs that rise faster than revenue? Many (not all) of the Padres issues are attributable to their spending on outside talent They were making cash calls and taking loans for significantly more than the revenue hit they took from their RSN contract blowing up.
-
12 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
It has nothing to do with the money not mattering. You would be making sense if people were talking about adding guys on 9 figure, 7-10 year deals. But no one is. We are talking shorter term contracts to help supplement the roster but not garbage signings like Gibson, Lyles, Frazier, et al.
I think that was the plan last year and maybe again this year, but now with the rhetoric ("lift off") kept in check. A lot of the guys in that going into the 2022 offseason that many thought would be good targets for 2-3 year deal ended up getting 5 or 6 years - deals didn't/don't make sense.
-
9 hours ago, baltfan said:
Elias hasn’t proven he can draft and develop pitching. Before putting him at the top of the list, I would like to see him show he can do that.
I'm not 100% convinced this matters much if the analytics show that the hit rate on identifying and acquiring pitchers from other organizations is higher than using valuable draft capital to acquire.
We haven't seen Elias start to move any of the excess positional prospect assets yet but I'm not convinced those positional prospects aren't a better way to bring pitching into the organization than spending a significant portion of limited draft capital on pitching would be. Jury is still out IMO.
-
1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:
He is under team control through age 29. His first FA year will be at age 30.
Meanwhile, it’s much more likely that Basallo would sign a long term deal at a cheaper rate.
The angle of how important Adley is can’t be understated but I do think having Basallo gives you some flexibility and leverage.
The reality is that if you can sign Adley for a 6 year deal, that would be good. That gets you through his age 31 season and then you just see from there.
But why would Adley sign that deal? A 6/100-110 type deal makes sense for the Os..but does it make sense for Adley? I tend to think not.
Basallo really makes this is an intriguing and tricky situation.
I don't think an extension for Adley is in the cards, basically for the reasons you state. It doesn't make a lot of sense for either side - O's should not consider extending him into his mid-30s and unless he's super risk averse, Adley should not consider an extension where he's a FA after he's already or at least well on his way exiting his peak.
This will hopefully work out to be a textbook example of how this approach to team building should work. Talent pipeline develops what is hopefully a quality replacement to plug in that makes it much easier to walk away when there is no path for a deal that makes sense for both the team and the player.
-
1 hour ago, Bemorewins said:
I cannot remember but I think it may have been you? My apologies if it was not.
But were you the poster who was advocating for a move of positions of Holliday to 2B or CF?
I ask because if the O’s choose the alignment you suggest, what happens next year (probably by no later than mid season) when Holliday is ready?
It appears that Bradfield Jr. was drafted to be the longterm CF, no? What do you envision that the orgs plans are for Holliday?
I'm not advocating moving Holliday anywhere at this point, but when he's ready, if the Orioles have a need at a position other than SS that he could fill and optimize the Orioles roster/lineup there should be little hesitation to do so. It would be a similar situation to when Machado - another high pick who was drafted to be the long-term SS - made his debut and ended up sticking at 3B.
-
14 hours ago, TheWall said:
He seems to really love starting hot at new levels. Hope that carries over when he eventually makes the show.
The hot starts certainly help with perception. While of course, he'd still be a top 10 prospect in all of baseball, I wonder if he would be an almost consensus #1 overall his production in Aberdeen in May (1.137 OPS) and June (.702) were reversed.
-
I think the two have a chance to be similarly productive if they play to their potential. Cowser ~0.50 higher in OBP and Kjerstand ~0.50 higher in SLG. I value OBP a bit more, so Cowser was my choice.
-
2 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:
How can these reasonably/accurately project that though? All they can do is use comps, but even with that all players are unique individuals.
They do the best they can and they will be wrong sometimes - that is the risk.
I look at a team like the Braves who have been very aggressive playing rookies with no fear of accepting the acclimation period the past few years and it's worked out brilliantly for them. But I'm sure there are examples of orgs who misjudged and ended up worse off having played the young guys.
-
33 minutes ago, osfan83 said:
Being only 1 game out of first, post all star break, we are in a legit pennant race. We must play those who are producing regardless of being a rookie or a vet. If Matteo heats up, play him and so on. I understand the thinking of building for 2024....but there is no guarantee we will be this good next July. We might be 5 over struggling to stay in the WC race, who knows? Right now we have a real shot that the division, play those who are producing.
What a player projects to be should be part of the calculus, not just who is producing now.
If for example, they project player X could produce at an .800 OPS clip but it may take 100 ABs at a .600 OPS for him to acclimate to MLB, I'd take that every day over the veteran who we know is going to give us a ~.700 OPS. There is of course some risk there that the player doesn't acclimate. But I'd rather play to win instead of playing not to lose.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, deward said:
While some do disagree, there have been plenty of evaluators who think Cowser can be adequate in CF for the first part of his career
Maybe wishful thinking but it could also just be an issue of needing some time to acclimate defensively as well. Not uncommon for a young OF coming up to sometimes struggle a bit getting used to tracking the ball in venues with a third deck.
-
10 minutes ago, AlbNYfan said:
What language are you using to translate? .212 BA (Ortiz), .143 BA (Cowser).....I am not saying that they may not be better with more playing time. But, I will say you shouldn't screw around when a team is deep in a playoff run and has been successful without them. They'll get there chance, but I don't see them increasing the O's playoff odds. Cowser does not look like a CF'er (could change). I was around in Rochester when Grich and Baylor were stuck there. Things will work out for them.
Even while not hitting yet, Cowser is getting on base 35% of the time and making an impact scoring 8 runs in 7 games.
-
1
-
Rubenstein and his “Why”
in Orioles Talk
Posted
As long as he keeps hosting his show on Bloomberg, there will be plenty of opportunities for him to be asked about the Orioles. I can't think of many owners who have as public a profile as he does outside of Mark Cuban.