Sanfran327

You know how everyone that hates commuting to an office every day says that the one good thing that we've learned from the pandemic is that you can work from home and it's basically the same thing? Well, you're right.

Okay, that makes sense. That's what you see on TV most of the time anyway. So while I do think there is a case to be made for shutting it down, I guess they aren't.

This seems to be the most suitable thread to in which to ask this question. Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, but... Have the Orioles made some announcement that I missed that they are (basically) only opening the lower bowl seats for weeknight games or for games that do not exceed a certain threshold of tickets sold? Seems like each game has had fans in the lower level only. Not just very sparse in the upper level, but empty. Club level still has fans, but not the top deck. I was noticing this with my dad yesterday, and with an organization that is - how we say - very aware of operational costs, it makes a lot of sense. We know that they don't really make their money on ticket sales, per-se, but concession and merch sales. So what if you let someone in at a "reduced rate" for lower level tix, right? That might entire more weeknight fans, first of all. Let them pay upper reserve prices for lower level seats - not a bad plan. Plus, then you don't have to open up the top deck and pay the operation costs unless you have to. Don't fire up those food vendors. Don't have to clean bathrooms that aren't used. Don't need to pay ushers, etc. etc. etc.

OP needs to update the ledger each time as well. Great idea.

I found the board right around the time of the Erik Bedard trade and began participating shortly thereafter. So I have been part of some high highs and some low lows. Through it all, it's always been the best place to get unfiltered O's news and highly-educated opinions. But there was a shift after that Encarnacion homer that ended our 2016 bid, and this board has been a distinctively darker place ever since. For many good, tangible reasons. We lost a manager that we all (nearly all) loved. We lost all of our favorite players. We lost a LOT of games since then. There just hasn't been a lot of positive story lines to discuss since then. Tanking to earn a few 1-1 picks isn't worthy of a celebration. Turn one of those into an MVP or a Cy Young winner, sure. Obviously, build a winning team. But I'm still not seeing much light at the end of the tunnel. IMO, the dark cloud hovering over this team has more to do with the ownership situation than it ever has, at least for me. I've never been an Angelos apologist, but I never really had much of an opinion of any of them until now. No doubt in my mind that we are one of the 4 worst run organizations out of all of the 4 major professional sports, and I don't see how that's going to change until ownership changes. How's that for dark and dreary? LOL

With the exception of the 2nd half of the 2014 season when we were going out there and winning 5 nights a week, this board has always been negative. Not that this team has given us a lot to be positive about. Even during that 2014 season - in the midst of winning 96 games - it never really felt like we were contenders. Even after sweeping the Tigers and their super rotation it never really felt like it. You'd come on here and a large contingency was waiting for the other shoe to drop, and then it did when we were swept by KC. The old joke has always been that even if we won the World Series, it wouldn't be enough if it wasn't a sweep of double digit wins. Or that the next day, someone would be wondering how sustainable it is. It's a tough crowd. At the end of the day though, it's also because a) baseball is a thinking man's game, and b) this happens to be the smartest internet forum I've ever visited. I do wish more folks here could live in the moment, but as of this morning, the moment was over. I wouldn't trade the knowledge base of this community for a little bit more positivity. Besides, even winning organization's message boards are filled with negativity. Check out Sons of Sam Horn for the Red Sox or whatever the Yankees' message board is. Fandom begets negativity.

I like the cartoon bird. Just bought a new cartoon bird hat, as a matter of fact. I remember how glad everyone here was when it came back. Seemed like we started winning right after the change. Unfortunately, all we do is lose these days. I digress... I am not one to make an association between something as insignificant as our hat with winning and losing, but I wouldn't mind seeing a change. Going the "classier" route has its appeal to me. Basically, the Friday night hats in all black with an orange script O's would be our version of that. Or something in an all black with an orange script B (kinda like the Baysox hat, but not nearly as loud). Again, no problem with the hat at all. Still a big fan. But I'm a huge hat guy (no exaggeration, I have probably 200 59 Fifty hats laying around), and as an adult, the cartoon bird hat is a little childish. Great to wear at the ball park or for yard work. But it's hard to rock a black, white, and orange tri-color hat with a cartoon bird on it in basically ever social situation outside of OPACY.

If the 2014 playoffs taught us anything, it's that this fanbase is still active. I think selling the team and having an organization in charge that will actually do things the right way (at least according to the court of public opinion) will put butts back in seats and re-energize fans. Every single one of us has heard in conversations here and there from more casual or "former" O's fans that they just can't support an Angelos-owned team. So I agree with you. The O's might not look like the best choice on paper, but dig just a little bit deeper and I think you'll see a scenario where you can have a very profitable club on your hands in a short period of time. Most Ravens fans are also O's fans, and they don't have a hard time filling that stadium. The difference (other than the number of games) is that the Ravens are possibly the #1 organization in the NFL, and the O's are a laughing stock. The fans are there; they just need a reason to come back.

The tweet is actually completely spot-on. In fact, as I read osfan's reply, which is a reasonable opinion, I thought to myself more or less verbatim what the tweet said (I read the response before the tweet because I read the thread backwards lol). Sorry, but Passan is right. The players are the product and the game/league is the framework that enables it. The players make the game exciting with their elite physical abilities. Going to the next 1200 players would just absolutely not be fun to watch night in and night out. Minor League games and college games are fun in a pinch as a novelty, not a main attraction. And while I know this will ruffle some feathers around here because people don't like hearing about how we're a small market team (or mid market at best), the players' demands really do need to be heard and addressed. It will hurt our team and help our rivals because of the way we spend. I loved Manny Machado and still feel a little something every time I see him in a Padres uniform. To me, he's our guy. But a player's prime is short if they even get one. They need to be able to get to that second contract sooner, and there needs to be fewer loopholes (incentives?) for teams to keep them in the minors longer than they need to be. In any other sport, Adley Rutschman would have been starting for his team last year. MLB is messed up, and the O's didn't want to waste a good year for their best player on a last-place team, and the institution allows it to happen. I'm rambling, but I know that I am on the side of the players. I am definitely an O's fan first and foremost over any player, but the players make the game fun, and watching a bunch of AA-AAAA players in an Orioles uniform would not be fun for anyone.

I went total fanboy hoping a lefty bat with pop would play up at OPACY, but I forgot that he also played at Yankee Stadium in a better lineup and did literally nothing. To quote Ron Burgundy, I immediately regret that decision. I'm not sure there's any evidence to suggest he'll post over the .665 he put up in 360 PAs in NY last year.

This I get. Our country is obsessed with solving yesterday's problems. Seems to be getting better though.

I'm usually on the same page with you, but I think this is flawed logic as a blanket statement. It's a model, and if we are able to add more talent than them to the same model, we should win more often than we lose. Anyway, regarding the OP, I think (perhaps incorrectly) we were frontrunners in showing MLB how much an excellent bullpen can prop up a middling rotation. We would not have had the success we did 2012-2016 without a great back end of the bullpen and effective middle relievers. Plus, Buck and Dan used the AAA players and MLB players with options masterfully when arms were strained.

Is that the same prestige as (for lack of a more informed word) a traditional election?

I don't know enough about the HOF and who really has any influence over it - if anyone (I know the BBWAA votes and all of that baloney) - but it makes me wonder if someone can do the right thing here (at least in my opinion) and override the stupidity that we just witnessed. I'm somewhat in disbelief that Bonds and Clemens will never be in the Hall, so I guess I'm waiting to see who is going to do something about this. I'm probably dead wrong, but I just have this feeling that we haven't heard the last of this somehow.

Jumping in here way late, but I'm fairly sure Buck was on record as saying it was up to Chris to determine when enough is enough (paraphrasing) in terms of the pending contract value. Thinking back, we basically "out bid ourselves" 2 or 3 times to keep him, IIRC.

Me too. I'll be rooting for the Mets around about the time the O's are mathematically eliminated, so probably by mid July.

There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese.

I assume this guy has a plaque on his wall that says "Never Make the First or Third Out at Third Base" That's good strategy, boys.

You can't sock dingers if you don't swing wildly at everything.

I guess in a nutshell, we can agree to disagree then. But here are a few counterpoints anyway: Franco's performance was just about expected, and he delivered as they hoped he would. The same could be said for AR. Hopefully we know more in 10 months. Age and position difference, as we already said, are the primary reasons why this isn't an apples to apples comparison, but I still think it's a decent off-season thought exercise. I guess you don't. OK. Your last point is what's driving your apathy here. No way in hell the O's strike a deal like this with AR, but we've been speculating about never-will-bes on this board since its inception. Just keeping it going. It's a hot stove tradition.

I mean, it's a legitimate question. Frobby is right (as usual) and I had the same thought that it's not an apples to apples comparison in years or dollars because of the position difference, but it does make you wonder what this type of deal could look like for Rutschman.

He's got plenty of power already, but I think you'll see him naturally get bigger and stronger as he enters his physical prime. Just being around a professional sports team and the exercise and nutrition regimens available to him should result in additional muscle.

I like the idea of having a former left-side-of-the-infield glove at 1st base. I think he'll get better as the position becomes more second-nature to him. Yes, he was a failed prospect defensively at SS and 3b, but he played at a high enough level there in lower levels to guess that he's got good footwork, mechanics, and athletic ability to do well at 1st. I think his early experience as a 3bman really helped Davis grow into being a good 1bman at his peak, and I have similar hopes for Mountcastle.

The one silver lining for me right now, which is honestly very surprising because I normally don't care about sports if it's not one of my teams, is that the O's were sooo bad this year that I may actually follow the postseason. They were so bad that it takes the sting out of watching others play on, because we were out before we evere even got started in 2021. I think I'm going to go all-in on the Giants, if for no other reason than for good will towards San Francisco and my 49ers, who look like they need all of the voodoo help they can get. Then again, it's also pretty likely that I'll catch little to none of the playoffs, because I won't care enough about not-my-team to sit through the games.

All good stuff and fantastic individual accomplishments. I remain hopeful that things will get better soon. But a ~51 win season is horrible no matter what goes on at an individual level. I hope Mullins, Mountcastle, Mancini, and Means are all on the next playoff roster.