"Defending the Status Quo?"

[BilboBaggins]

In this thread there's been a discussion about the two groups of fans who appear to dominate the OH. EddieMurrayFan made what I believe to be an excellent point here:

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php/117233-Now-Gio-is-gone-to-the-Nats-Where-are-the-Orioles?p=2638278#post2638278

WHY is it that you status quo guys think that BOTH CANNOT BE DONE together, at the same time, simultaneously? What is it that is so hard about that? When you bash every possible move to improve the ML team and say its not right, or will not make any sense, or it will cripple the team, in essence you are defending the status quo. Even if you dont think you are defenders you are!

I will never understand why there is such opposition to putting a better product on the field for fear that it will cripple the long term plan. I dont have pocket protector syndrome so its hard to fathom the logic.

The groups are:

Group #1 - Win now.

Group #2 - Take the time to build a winner.

This is an oversimplification but it feels like this same argument pops up on the Hangout in every single off season since 2006.

No matter what high-priced, high-quality free agent is available, there will be a very vocal contingent of posters who believe that signing anyone who will make some kind of impact on the Orioles is a bad idea because we're going to lose draft picks, compensation(s) and a seemingly endless bunch of reasons why the franchise will be crippled if Peter Angelos decides to spend some money.

The thing that bothers me is that - to my knowledge - there has never been a definitive reason (beyond greed and thrift) that Peter Angelos can't spend money. There have been countless arguments here saying "we can't afford this or that" when there doesn't seem to be a financial statement from the Orioles braintrust that says "this is our absolute financial limit."

If this has been stated somewhere, please feel free to point me in that direction and I will happily concede my point. :scratchchinhmm:

I've never seen that kind of information come from the Orioles and yet there's this strange preoccupation with the belief that we're the Kansas City Royals or Oakland A's in terms of revenue and market size and that's simply not the case.

Some would say that no one is actually arguing for the continued suckitude of the Baltimore Orioles, but if someone advocates against making moves that improve the team and continues to preach we stay on the current path, in essence, aren't they arguing for the status quo?

Every argument against signing players WE NEED badly is an argument for the status quo. I could see how people could argue against signing a bunch of guys while not improving any other facet of the organization, but how would we destroy the franchise by signing Prince Fielder?

That money would be well spent and it doesn't mean that the scouting and development have to be cut if Angelos is willing to spend the money and invest in the on-field product which would lead to higher ticket sales which leads to more money coming in. It's quite simple actually.

The Orioles are STILL stuck in this "not quite rebuilding, not quite contending" mode that we've languished in since 2007 and the same people make arguments for not making significant changes to the team during every single off season. They have incredibly long and erudite posts that explain why we shouldn't spend money on big free agents but in the end of the following season, we still finish in last place.

We never pick up quality free agents, and we're still pretending that MacPhail's trades are earth-shattering when the reality is that we picked up a few guys who are good, but need to be supplemented with better talent so they can raise their game. It's one of the reasons why some players seem to shine better when they get to the Yankees. There's an attitude of success there that is infectious (oh no, an intangible, oh no).

If you're arguing that signing a major free agent will cripple the franchise, I don't know how this franchise can be any more crippled. We stink on almost every conceivable level. If we can bring some talent here in any form, why argue against it? That's what I don't get.

This same argument was stated in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and now in 2011(12) and we're still an awful team. If we can't buy talent, and we can't develop talent, and we only trade occasionally for talent, then what are our options? Just keep waiting for the "core" and the "cavalry" to save us?

I've never seen anyone here who is against signing major free agents explain what we're going to do to get out of this mess other than advocate for the current practices by the front office. They scream "trades" but trade WHO? We don't have anyone because we didn't get major free agents and we can't develop anyone properly.

The Orioles have done everything absolutely wrong. The only way to change it is to CHANGE HOW THEY OPERATE. We have to sign great talent to get better. That is all we have to do. Meanwhile, we can strengthen our minors with excellent international and domestic scouting and decent signing bonuses.

We never have gotten the draft picks of the Rays or Nats so the best thing to do is get quality talent while it is available. We don't do that and a lot of Orioles fans seem okay with it. And that makes no sense.

[RVAbird]

This is an oversimplification

/thread

[clapdiddy]

Quite honestly, I think we can build a contender AND build a significant development system. I have no problems with us losing draft picks if DD and his group of international scouts are going to find us players outside of the Rule 4 draft.

I think we could improve this team by dealing some players on the current roster AND adding some significant free agents. We wouldn't be contending this season, but we could see a markedly better team, while still building our farm.

[TakebackOPACY]

Some would say that no one is actually arguing for the continued suckitude of the Baltimore Orioles, but if someone advocates against making moves that improve the team and continues to preach we stay on the current path, in essence, aren't they arguing for the status quo?

As interesting as this could be, I'm not going to be able to stay and debate this with you. Hopefully someone else will. I'll just say this, noone is arguing for the status quo. That's silly. So if you're starting with the hypothesis that Oriole fans want the Orioles to win, then you'll take the time to see what the 'other' viewpoint is about. Now that all said, there aren't just two camps and just two ways of going about it. It may seem that way; the recent trend on this board really makes it seem that way; but it isn't that way.

Seeing the issue as having two sides is seeing the issue as having only one dimension.

[TGO]

What you're talking about brings to my mind something Frobby said this in another thread, particularly the first paragraph:

The answer to this is a little complicated, and depends what you believe about the money available for the team to spend. If you believe that the Orioles/MASN are hugely profitable and Angelos is simply pocketing boatloads of cash that could be used to improve the team, then your answer will be one thing. If you believe that the team has finite resources, and has to choose how to allocate its funds, then you get a different answer. And as a third alternative, if you believe that the team is quite profitable, but is building a war chest to use when the time is right, you get a third answer.

One thing we can say for sure, is that there are plenty of teams more successful than the Orioles despite having a lower payroll. And the reason they are better, is that their farm systems have been better. Much better. That is the problem I care about.

Basically, you think the money is there, right? No, I can't prove to you that it isn't, but you can't prove that it is.

So I'm not sure how useful having this discussion can even be.

[El Gordo]

The O's can build a win now team by adding a TOR, a MOO bat and a couple of top ML ready SP prospects to stash at Norfolk, IMO. But to win consistently they need to rebuild the infrastucture and establish a pipe line of talent ala TB. To do that they need to trade ML pieces that would form the compliments to the TOR and MOO bat, in order to restock the upper levels of the farm system. That seems to be the conundrum. To pay Paul you have to rob Peter. Duq's priority seems to be rebuilding the infrastructure and restocking the farm system through international FA, while doing what he can to make the ML club competitive. A tough balancing act.

[Sports Guy]

/thread

Seriously...Its not even an oversimplification. Its just a total misunderstanding of what people are saying and inability to grasp obvious points.

[JTrea81]

In this thread there's been a discussion about the two groups of fans who appear to dominate the OH. EddieMurrayFan made what I believe to be an excellent point here:

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php/117233-Now-Gio-is-gone-to-the-Nats-Where-are-the-Orioles?p=2638278#post2638278

The groups are:

Group #1 - Win now.

Group #2 - Take the time to build a winner.

This is an oversimplification but it feels like this same argument pops up on the Hangout in every single off season since 2006.

No matter what high-priced, high-quality free agent is available, there will be a very vocal contingent of posters who believe that signing anyone who will make some kind of impact on the Orioles is a bad idea because we're going to lose draft picks, compensation(s) and a seemingly endless bunch of reasons why the franchise will be crippled if Peter Angelos decides to spend some money.

The thing that bothers me is that - to my knowledge - there has never been a definitive reason (beyond greed and thrift) that Peter Angelos can't spend money. There have been countless arguments here saying "we can't afford this or that" when there doesn't seem to be a financial statement from the Orioles braintrust that says "this is our absolute financial limit."

If this has been stated somewhere, please feel free to point me in that direction and I will happily concede my point. :scratchchinhmm:

I've never seen that kind of information come from the Orioles and yet there's this strange preoccupation with the belief that we're the Kansas City Royals or Oakland A's in terms of revenue and market size and that's simply not the case.

Some would say that no one is actually arguing for the continued suckitude of the Baltimore Orioles, but if someone advocates against making moves that improve the team and continues to preach we stay on the current path, in essence, aren't they arguing for the status quo?

Every argument against signing players WE NEED badly is an argument for the status quo. I could see how people could argue against signing a bunch of guys while not improving any other facet of the organization, but how would we destroy the franchise by signing Prince Fielder?

That money would be well spent and it doesn't mean that the scouting and development have to be cut if Angelos is willing to spend the money and invest in the on-field product which would lead to higher ticket sales which leads to more money coming in. It's quite simple actually.

The Orioles are STILL stuck in this "not quite rebuilding, not quite contending" mode that we've languished in since 2007 and the same people make arguments for not making significant changes to the team during every single off season. They have incredibly long and erudite posts that explain why we shouldn't spend money on big free agents but in the end of the following season, we still finish in last place.

We never pick up quality free agents, and we're still pretending that MacPhail's trades are earth-shattering when the reality is that we picked up a few guys who are good, but need to be supplemented with better talent so they can raise their game. It's one of the reasons why some players seem to shine better when they get to the Yankees. There's an attitude of success there that is infectious (oh no, an intangible, oh no).

If you're arguing that signing a major free agent will cripple the franchise, I don't know how this franchise can be any more crippled. We stink on almost every conceivable level. If we can bring some talent here in any form, why argue against it? That's what I don't get.

This same argument was stated in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and now in 2011(12) and we're still an awful team. If we can't buy talent, and we can't develop talent, and we only trade occasionally for talent, then what are our options? Just keep waiting for the "core" and the "cavalry" to save us?

I've never seen anyone here who is against signing major free agents explain what we're going to do to get out of this mess other than advocate for the current practices by the front office. They scream "trades" but trade WHO? We don't have anyone because we didn't get major free agents and we can't develop anyone properly.

The Orioles have done everything absolutely wrong. The only way to change it is to CHANGE HOW THEY OPERATE. We have to sign great talent to get better. That is all we have to do. Meanwhile, we can strengthen our minors with excellent international and domestic scouting and decent signing bonuses.

We never have gotten the draft picks of the Rays or Nats so the best thing to do is get quality talent while it is available. We don't do that and a lot of Orioles fans seem okay with it. And that makes no sense.

Well said. I think I've made every one of these points so it's nice to see somebody else get it... :clap3:

They've made trades, and still haven't got better. They have to be willing to sign and trade for premium talent, sacrificing both $ and prospects to win.

The only minor leaguer in our system that should be untouchable is Dylan Bundy and he's a PTBNL anyway. Everybody else should be up for grabs...

You don't have to have a good minor league system to win, just to sustain winning.

[Babypowder]

Since we are oversimplifying things and painting people with broad strokes, I think the groups you are talking about break down more like this:

Group 1 - Delusional fans arguing that the team should spend a ton of money on free agency and carry a payroll far beyond what the team has ever done before. Then pretending it is realistic that Peter Angelos would even consider it.

Group 2 - Fans who realize that the Orioles are probably going to remain in the payroll range they have been in for the past decade and attempting to build an organization and team that can win while staying within those financial constraints.

[EddieMurrayfan]

Since we are oversimplifying things and painting people with broad strokes, I think the groups you are talking about break down more like this:

Group 1 - Delusional fans arguing that the team should spend a ton of money on free agency and carry a payroll far beyond what the team has ever done before. Then pretending it is realistic that Peter Angelos would even consider it.

Group 2 - Fans who realize that the Orioles are probably going to remain in the payroll range they have been in for the past decade and attempting to build an organization and team that can win while staying within those financial constraints.

Let me guess, you are for the status quo system?

[EddieMurrayfan]

In this thread there's been a discussion about the two groups of fans who appear to dominate the OH. EddieMurrayFan made what I believe to be an excellent point here:

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php/117233-Now-Gio-is-gone-to-the-Nats-Where-are-the-Orioles?p=2638278#post2638278

The groups are:

Group #1 - Win now.

Group #2 - Take the time to build a winner.

This is an oversimplification but it feels like this same argument pops up on the Hangout in every single off season since 2006.

No matter what high-priced, high-quality free agent is available, there will be a very vocal contingent of posters who believe that signing anyone who will make some kind of impact on the Orioles is a bad idea because we're going to lose draft picks, compensation(s) and a seemingly endless bunch of reasons why the franchise will be crippled if Peter Angelos decides to spend some money.

The thing that bothers me is that - to my knowledge - there has never been a definitive reason (beyond greed and thrift) that Peter Angelos can't spend money. There have been countless arguments here saying "we can't afford this or that" when there doesn't seem to be a financial statement from the Orioles braintrust that says "this is our absolute financial limit."

If this has been stated somewhere, please feel free to point me in that direction and I will happily concede my point. :scratchchinhmm:

I've never seen that kind of information come from the Orioles and yet there's this strange preoccupation with the belief that we're the Kansas City Royals or Oakland A's in terms of revenue and market size and that's simply not the case.

Some would say that no one is actually arguing for the continued suckitude of the Baltimore Orioles, but if someone advocates against making moves that improve the team and continues to preach we stay on the current path, in essence, aren't they arguing for the status quo?

Every argument against signing players WE NEED badly is an argument for the status quo. I could see how people could argue against signing a bunch of guys while not improving any other facet of the organization, but how would we destroy the franchise by signing Prince Fielder?

That money would be well spent and it doesn't mean that the scouting and development have to be cut if Angelos is willing to spend the money and invest in the on-field product which would lead to higher ticket sales which leads to more money coming in. It's quite simple actually.

The Orioles are STILL stuck in this "not quite rebuilding, not quite contending" mode that we've languished in since 2007 and the same people make arguments for not making significant changes to the team during every single off season. They have incredibly long and erudite posts that explain why we shouldn't spend money on big free agents but in the end of the following season, we still finish in last place.

We never pick up quality free agents, and we're still pretending that MacPhail's trades are earth-shattering when the reality is that we picked up a few guys who are good, but need to be supplemented with better talent so they can raise their game. It's one of the reasons why some players seem to shine better when they get to the Yankees. There's an attitude of success there that is infectious (oh no, an intangible, oh no).

If you're arguing that signing a major free agent will cripple the franchise, I don't know how this franchise can be any more crippled. We stink on almost every conceivable level. If we can bring some talent here in any form, why argue against it? That's what I don't get.

This same argument was stated in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and now in 2011(12) and we're still an awful team. If we can't buy talent, and we can't develop talent, and we only trade occasionally for talent, then what are our options? Just keep waiting for the "core" and the "cavalry" to save us?

I've never seen anyone here who is against signing major free agents explain what we're going to do to get out of this mess other than advocate for the current practices by the front office. They scream "trades" but trade WHO? We don't have anyone because we didn't get major free agents and we can't develop anyone properly.

The Orioles have done everything absolutely wrong. The only way to change it is to CHANGE HOW THEY OPERATE. We have to sign great talent to get better. That is all we have to do. Meanwhile, we can strengthen our minors with excellent international and domestic scouting and decent signing bonuses.

We never have gotten the draft picks of the Rays or Nats so the best thing to do is get quality talent while it is available. We don't do that and a lot of Orioles fans seem okay with it. And that makes no sense.

Thanks for your input as well.

[Babypowder]

Let me guess, you are for the status quo system?

Nope, I just know the Orioles aren't going to have a 120 million dollar payroll anytime soon. So, I don't see the worth in discussing it. I want them to stop this fence sitting position and rebuild legitimately, which they never have and probably never will do.

[waroriole]

Anyone who thinks that people on here are for the "status quo" can either not comprehend what they are reading, or looking to pick a fight and make their ridiculous "child-like I want it now" position look the least bit reasonable.

The OP fails to grasp the other side's position because he doesn't want to grasp it. MSK would rather debate this straw man position that folks want the status quo so he doesn't have to think about the moves he's proposing. It's ridiculous and annoying.

[Rene88]

I think we can all agree on one thing-we care about our baseball team. Happy Holidays everyone.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Let me guess, you are for the status quo system?

I consider that characterization, as you are throwing it around, to be meant as an insult, and thus a violation of board rules.