ChosenOne21
-
Posts
1431 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChosenOne21
-
-
I don't understand why the Tigers are doing this. They're light-years from contention
-
1
-
-
There is no way Ryan Mountcastle has the arm to play right field. What even is this?
-
13 hours ago, atomic said:
As Frobby likes to bring up my bad predictions... you will notice I was right in Cruz case and Frobby was wrong.
So how did you know Cruz was going to be more valuable from 34-37 than he was from 30-33? Tell me your secrets--I want to work for a MLB front office
-
1
-
1
-
-
I voted yes, but it could have just as easily been meh. Nobody in the return excites me, but what did we expect?
I've been a proponent for holding onto Bundy unless someone offered us someone who could be part of the future with the hope that Bundy could drop his home run rate and be worth more at the deadline. The more I think about it, the more I realize that probably wasn't going to happen. Still, no one in that trade is likely to be even a medium-sized part of the next good Orioles team...
Bundy will probably be better than last year if for no other reason than he's no longer pitching in, what, the second most home-run friendly park in the majors? If he does have a good season for the Angels it will probably be because he's in a park that fits his skill set. Best of luck to the guy
-
Just now, weams said:
But he has no salary if waived or released? I am confused by this machination I guess.
I was referring to what I would have rather seen done than waving him, I guess. Even so, I'll bet he gets more than a 10M guarantee on the open market (over multiple years) so it's conceivable teams would be willing to trade a prospect rather than enter a bidding war
-
1 hour ago, weams said:
Why pay cash? you could just buy whatever propect you need. Or trade Trey or Givens or Bundy for prospects with no cash. The Orioles have no obligation to the obviously overpriced Villar. Talented, but overpriced to the market.
Because Villar doesn't have zero value, so trading him plus cash would get us more in a trade while avoiding paying his full salary
-
I feel like at a minimum we could ship him out with some cash to buy a prospect while still saving some money. Why let him go for nothing? Are we so cash strapped that we can't afford to buy prospects?
At a minimum, the Indians should be interested. Big hole at 2B, deep farm system, always cash-strapped
-
How does a middle infielder who was worth 4 wins last year have no trade value at a 10 million salary when the free agent cost of a win is 8-9 million? It's honestly puzzling to me no one wanted to roll the dice--did they just figure the Orioles would cut him anyway?
-
43 minutes ago, theocean said:
As far as the Orioles go - 1.3 million fans in 2019. 1.5 million fans in 2018. That dropped off from 2 million fans in 2017 when they went 75-87 and 1.7 million fans when they were 69-93 in 2011.
Lot of other variables there, but I think a 30 win improvement would definitely engage more fans.
Okay, but you also have to consider the cost to get those additional wins. If we assume that the difference between 45 and 75 wins is 700 thousand fans and each fan spends an average of $40, that's about 28 million in revenue lost. It might be worth considering shooting for 75 wins if we could get there for say, $15 million or so, but I think that would be pretty hard to do in our situation. You'd also have to count for future value lost because of picking lower in the draft...
Maybe you'd be happier and go to more games if the Orioles won 75, but I've got the specter of 1998-2011 looming large. I'd rather they win 45-ish games the next three years and 95-ish the three after that than win 75 games per year over the same timeframe
-
4 hours ago, UpstateNYfan said:
True, but what about success in the stands?? If 70% of the teams are looking 3 year opportunities every decade how do you maintain fan interest the other 7 years? The operation was a success, but the patient died.
I doubt that fans are much more eager to see a 70 win team than a 40 win one. Feel free to contradict me with average attendance figures over a ten-year span, or so. If we don't tender Jonathan Villar a contract, I doubt enough fans say, "Well that's it, I'm not going to any games this year" to cost us anywhere near the 10 million we saved.
Have you already forgotten the recent Oriole teams that spent and spent on free agents to try to get to .500 before making a run? How did that work out? What brings fans to the game is excellence. And sadly, the best way to get there is to suck for a few years
-
I agree that the pressure to show endless profits and growth is often harmful, but selling stock is how a lot of companies raise money to grow the business. If you can't do that there could be problems
-
7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
Isn't every corporation and individual interesting in lowering costs?
Yes, but the audacity of it all! They should spend more because they spent more in the past. If you don't give players more money than they're worth, you're greedy. However if players demand more than they're worth, they're "just wanting to be paid at historic norms" or something
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Satyr3206 said:
Since the advent of the young, Ivy League educated GM's what has been the constant? Some say analytics, some say moving the game into a new era.
Reality is slightly different.
Almost as a rule it has been about money. Think about it.
Free Agents staying on the market longer and not getting paid by Baseball's historical norm.
Putting the value on younger players. Six years of Team control.
Contracting Minor League Teams. A terrible long term decision.
Managers salaries sinking at a alarming rate. Along with guys getting hired that should not be in a dugout.
Expanding Analytic Departments while getting rid of a lot of Scouts and Development people. Watching Video or workouts is not a good substitute.
The constant here is all of these things lower spending. Not hard to convince most Owners to try it.
What say you?
What?
The reason free agents are staying on the market longer is they want more money than they are likely to provide in value. They saw a bunch of players get 8 and 9 figure contracts well into their thirties and figured, "why not me?" The answer is teams have realized that such contracts don't tend to work out well for the team. Are teams supposed to just give away heaping piles of cash because that's what they did in the recent past?
As for baseball's historical norm, I'm pretty sure that's players getting jobs in the offseason like they did for most of the time MLB has been around.
Maybe teams value younger players because they put up better numbers?
Manager salaries sinking--can you provide a source for this? Guys getting hired that shouldn't be in a dugout--like who? Are teams supposed to pay the Buck Showalters and Joe Morgans of the world millions of dollars so they can ignore the team's modus operandi because "back in the dust bowl computers didn't play the game?" If I were a hiring manager, I'd rather hire an inexpensive young guy who buys into the organizational philosophy and plan than an expensive older guy who's going to refuse to buy in.
I might be with you on the expanding analytics departments while cutting scouts and development people if the teams that were doing it weren't succeeding like gangbusters. See also previous paragraph.
This is about way more than money, come on...
-
3
-
-
I'm fine with trading him, but only if we get someone Elias considers to be a quality piece. I don't want to give him away. Someone's got to eat innings and there's always a chance he starts living up to his potential and is suddenly worth much more than he is now. I think Luke or someone said he's basically a bizarrely high HR/FB rate away from being a TOR starter. I'd rather risk overpaying a bit for him to eat innings for us then miss out on being able to deal him for much more if that HR/FB rate comes down
-
White had a wRC+ of 132 while Mountcastle had 117. Still, Mountcastle is younger and did it at a higher level although White is like a 70 glove so there's that too
-
I'd do it. It would shock me if Ryan Mountcastle isn't worth $24 million over his six years of team control and the options could prove valuable. I think there's a good chance he earns more than $22.5 million in his 3-4 arbitration years anyway
-
I'm sorry to hear about how the team has treated you, Tony. You deserve better.
Like others have said, it's your life and you do you, but I hope you will continue to run this site, or at least participate in the discussions here if someone else takes over.
I've been on this site daily for at least 15 years, and I wouldn't be nearly as big an Orioles fan without it. I don't post much, but I read pretty much everything.
I just became a plus member. It's long overdue and the least I owe you for all the content you've provided over the years.
For those who can't afford to be plus, consider whitelisting the website from your ad-blocker. I run an add blocker, but whitelist sites like this one run by small, passionate creators and it makes all the difference sometimes
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, DirtyBird said:
Oh, I guess that gives away the answer.
It basically does if you've been paying attention
-
1 hour ago, wildcard said:
Kyle Moore says Fenter has three plus pitches. As bad as the O's need starters I can't see them exposing a guy like that to the draft. Even if he ends of being a multi inning reliever if he has three plus pitches he is too good to expose IMO
I'm pretty sure if Fenter had three plus pitches Tony and Luke would know about it and rank him higher than 20-something in their prospect rankings
-
I don't really have a clue at this point. I think it's one of the first two, and ended up picking the second one. Fifth has Tate too high, and I don't see Cumberland, Greiner or McCoy being this high, so that eliminates the third and fourth
-
Am I just way off about Pop? Other than the chance he doesn't come back strong from TJS (low) isn't he basically a major league ready setup man at worst? Isn't that better to have in your organization than a 4th outfielder or a swingman?
-
Yeah, this is getting difficult. I doubt Tate and McCoy are this high, so that eliminates those two options. Rodriguez and Stauffer would be the sexy pick, but I feel like those guys are too much of an unknown compared to the other options. My gut tells me it's Bannon and Pop because I know Luke loves Bannon and while Pop had TJS, the recovery rate is excellent and he has 8th/9th inning upside and is basically ready. McKenna seems to have hit a wall and I'm not quite a believer in Zimmermann, but I think they're defensible here.
-
17 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
I like Hall but if you don't have enough power to keep pitchers honest and you don't play a premium position it is going to be rough going, particularly if the K rate is suspect.
2B isn't a premium position?
-
I went with Hall and Stowers, but I could have just as easily picked Pop and Sedlock. Pretty sure it isn't the other three choices. Tate's stock is way down, Stauffer doesn't seem like anything special and Bannon and McKenna don't have much upside.
Didn't pick Pop and Sedlock because I think Pop was about here in the rankings last year and he had TJS. Also while Sedlock is showing signs of life, he probably has 7/8th inning guy ceiling
Year One Survivors of the Rebuild
in Orioles Talk
Posted
Great write-up!
I do not understand this organization's fascination with Dwight Smith Jr. We have a crowded outfield and he's, what, replacement level at best and not getting any younger? Every time they take someone off the 40-man, I'm surprised it isn't him