osfan83

It's just a matter of time before this whole thing crashes anyway. It's unstainable to increase prices while at the same time demand is reduced. I think 20 years from now MLB will look a lot different than it does now, the reduction of minor league affiliated teams was just the first step. - Maybe we see a reduction in the number of teams. Maybe MLB follows English soccer and teams like the O's fall into a second or third tier of teams that only compete with the Yankees if promoted or during tournaments. - Expenses will have to be further reduced. Maybe no player development (it's expensive, if younger players are no longer cost controlled it makes no sense to develop a few major leaguers out of a large pool) let colleges develop the players and only draft MLB ready guys. The tipping point will be when franchises no long appreciate at a rate comparable to what potential owners can get with other investments. Owning a team is fun and has status, but not if the teams overall value does not increase at a decent rate over time.

Haven't read every post so forgive me if this has been addressed. How much additional income does the team see by fielding a 70 win team vs a 50 win team. I'm sure it's not huge, but it does offset some of the expense of bringing in a few better players.

I grew up a huge baseball fan. Collected baseball cards for years, could pretty much name every player on each team throughout the 70's and 80's, even into the '90's. With that said, I haven't watched a baseball playoff game, excluding those with the O's participating, in 10+ years. My list of why: - Other life priorities. -Can't stay up late enough during the week to see past the 5th so why start watching at all. -Irritated with baseballs inequities. -Lack of excitement (K,BB,HR outcomes).

Well, there is no way to prove it, but I think the cumulative affect of playing big payroll teams may wear down the O's over 162, so they perform worse against teams outside of the division. And as stated here before, FA pitchers really don't want to play in Baltimore and face those line ups all the time. And third, it just doesn't make sense for teams to compete for the same playoff slot, but play vastly different levels of competition.

True, but the fans don't like it.

Could you imagine if the Premier League split into divisions, put Liverpool, Chelsea, Man City, Man United and Norwich in a division, then played a unbalanced schedule? Why would Norwich ever have any fans? They would beg for relegation just so they could watch some meaningful footy.

Agree. How many times in the last 10 years have the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers missed the playoffs? How many times have the Pirates, O's, Royals, Marlins, Brewers made the playoffs? Sure the smaller market teams make it every once and a while. Talk to me when KC, Pitt and Milwaukee make the playoffs 8 out of 10 years.

There may be a dictate to save in every area that has minimal impact on the field. Organizations are always looking to be more efficient.

At what point does the team start to worry. After opening day if the average April attendance is 5,000 do they become concerned? How low can TV ratings get before they can no longer sell advertising during the games? At some point, to keep the business going, they are going to have to compete at some level.

Goal next year is to make it 3 in a row with 1st overall pick.

Im guessing 45 wins.

I would argue that fans not going to games, not watching them on TV and not buying team merchandise is a consequence of not being competitive. These things hurt ownership. So even if fans say they understand, and are supportive of the tanking, that doesn't result in helping the team. Even a payroll of $20m will eventually run the team into the red if virtually nobody goes to the games or are watching on TV.

Not sure fans have bought into it....have you seen attendance figures?

Two thoughts: - The next time a team is going through a "rebuild" and needs a warm body to be manager, I would like to throw my hat into the ring. I feel confident I can lead a team to at least 25-30 wins. - For teams intentionally tanking, they should institute the current intentional walk rule. Just allow the team to take an automatic "L" for each game during the season and have the players stay in Florida to play 162 extended spring training games. The MLB has become professional wrestling, you know who is going to win before the match starts.

You could probably bring up the entire Shorebirds pitching staff and get better results.

I wonder if next year we will be able to buy a $40 pass to attended as many games as you want. That's the only way I would invest any money into this team. $40 for the possibility of seeing 81 games.

Speaking as a long time Hockey fan....ties are the worst. You just don't feel right after watching a long game with no resolution.

They should play the bottom of the 9th even when the home team is winning so I don't get cheated out of my full 9!

Thanks for the list...eyeballing it I see 3 players who played any part of this century that stayed with their small market team: Gordan - KC Mauer & Perkins - Min I think the scorched earth strategy will be pretty much the only available for second tier teams.

Been thinking a lot about why I don't enjoy baseball as much as I used to, and what might be driving the causal fan away. Sure length of the game, too many HR's Walks and K's, financial inequities are part of it. But I think another part is small market teams like the O's, Royals, Pirates, A's, Rays and others can't have long term starts anymore. I think in todays game you would never see: -Cal Ripken play his whole career with Baltimore -Willie Stargell play decades with Pittsburgh -George Brett play his whole career with KC These players would have to be moved to restock in order to compete. And this is hurting the causal fan. How many casual fans went to games just to see these guys play? You knew they would be in the All-Star game representing your franchise. You knew they would get some national recognition. Manny Machado probably would have played his whole career in Baltimore if he came up in 1985. Would have been a perennial All Star, and maybe would have received some HOF talk towards the end of his career. Casual fans would buy his jersey and come to the OPACY to see him play a few times a year. Trey Mancini is a great story. Fighting back from cancer, having a good season. Shining on the national stage during the HR derby. But we all know he is not long for Baltimore. Yes, trading him is the right move to rebuild the team. It might work. But the casual fan who just now is becoming a Mancini fan, has one more reason not to come to an O's game next year once he is moved. Is there any chance these small markets teams will have a 15+ year star, face of the franchise, possible HOFer moving forward?

Thanks

Why did he wear #44?

Hey look at the bright side. We may have identified 3 guys who could be part of a winning team, just need 22 more!

I kinda view my Oriole fandom like the grass in my yard. Very active during the spring growing season, but lay dormant during the hot days of summer. First part of the winter happy I don't have to think about it, but late winter looking forward to getting back at it again.

Weight wins based on total dollars spent. Go to a point system. When the Yankees win a game they get one point in the standings, when the O's win we get 10 points. The higher your overall team expense, the less points you get for a win. You want to hide expenses? Then you pay more tax dollars.