Boswell: Peter Angelos is worse than Dan Snyder

[MrOrange82]

Fred Wilpon, Frank McCourt, Jeffrey Loria

Jeff Loria may be an ass, but the Marlins have been close to .500 over the span of his ownership, and he's won a WS in the last decade.

I don't know why PA gets the benefit of the doubt over Loria simply because he's spent more money sustaining an awful team.

IMO, baseball ownership rankings don't take things like community service into account (where PA clearly has the edge).

[weams]

The Two Tony's have plenty of Angelos stories they could frighten us further with.

[UMDTerrapins]

(1) if, as you say, PA is willing to spend just enough (a fairly substantial amount) to keep hordes of angry Baltimoreans off his doorstep, then why is he so unwilling to spend that same amount of money intelligently? There's no reason he can't win with a $76ish million payroll.

I honestly think he has tried to put a competitive team on the field within that budget. I think MacPhail, Duquettes, Flanagan, Beattie, Wren etc were tasked with fielding a competitive team within a certain budget. But the restrictions he has placed on personnel decisions (on and off the field) have rendered their best attempts meaningless. He is convinced that he has all the right answers because in all other parts of his life he has been successful. None of that wisdom has made it's way into making the Orioles a more competitive team in the last 15 years. He is not an intelligent owner when it comes to creating a winning franchise. I doubt his fellow investors would complain much though.

(2) the preceding notwithstanding, if you honestly believe that his motivation IS to spend the bare minimum to keep fans at bay while turning a tidy profit, regardless of the win/loss consequences, then why harbor ANY hope whatsoever that the O's will make changes to become a winning team?

My hope is that I'm likely to outlive Angelos. Otherwise, I have no hope (and I'm a generally optimistic person).

[vab]

As a fan of both of these teams (pain 24/7/365) I would have to say that, right now, Angelos probably is worse. Snyder has absolutely stepped back and, while we can argue how competent the guy he has put in charge is, Snyder has to be given credit for that. Angelos has stepped back as well but it seems he has put people and/or policies in place that still cripple his front office people in trying to put a decent product on the field. The bottom line here is we're pretty much splitting hairs. Both of them are horrible and it's likely neither team will get better until they have new ownership. 1983 seems like 100 years ago.

[weams]

There are more nuggets in that chat. Thanks Frobby.

At least for now, there is a more important issue than whether the trade works.The Nats made the right decision on WHO should make the trade __the front office baseball people or those above them.

For 48 hours before the trade, the industry was buzzing that Nats FO couldn't get a 4-for-1 deal approved. Some fans may not understand what a big and symbolic problem that is for an organization.

It's bad enough to make people you should trust "prove their case" on every free agent dollar. But when you won't even let 'em trade THEIR OWN GUYS that they scouted in West Bleepin' Nowhere, signed, nurtured, think of as their semi-kids and know better than anybody, the word goes throughout baseball fast and the lifers just go nuts.

It's tough for owmners in suits, throughout baseball, to put such trust in huge decisions blue-collar guys with "questionabale" taste in clothes who, maybe, topped at A ball and took 20 years drudging their way up to a front office. Ironically, Ted Lerener is one of the guys who should "get it." He was an up-from-public-high-school GW-law-school-at-night guy. That's exactly how he learned the construction/RE biz __bottom up, calloused hands. Those same kind of people __like him__ are very often the ones who know baseball the best. They make mistakes; but, in the Nats case, they people's ideas are his best shot for success.

[weams]

And PF stuff

The Lerners leery are of spending before the revenue is actually in hand. They seldom speculate on what is "probably" going to happen __with more $ from MASN and more attendance. They have to see it first. I nag them. But they have 3-billion reasons to think it's smart business. Are they right?

Werth is due $20M in '14 and $21M in '15-'17. Fielder is going to get >$20M-a-year __it's just a matter of how much over $20M and for how many years. If you want to guesstimate RZim, look at Tulowitzki's deal out through age 35 with five years at $20M/yr and figure Z'man will get maybe 85% of that.

What are the implications for fans that want the Nats to have the best chance to maximize this five-year "window __'12 through '16__ when Strasburg is under team control? Even if Nats draw >30K/game will the Lerners go beyond a $90-to-$100M payroll? Or $110M in a max go-for-it-year. Few teams do unless they have a big and ardent fan base.

When Strasburg and Z'mann become arbitration eligible "everybody" is going to want the Nats to try to do what they did with Z'man __that is, make sure they get eight years, not just six, out of him before he can be a free agent.

[Slappy]

Dan Snyder is worse than Peter Angelos because of one fact: he's literally half of Angelos' age (46 vs. 82).

Boswell used to be a good baseball writer. Now he's an anti-O's shill. He's better when he sticks to fact-based arguments or waxes poetic on baseball history.

[BilboBaggins]

Please quote just three examples of someone saying that we're a "small market" team. Or even just one. Please. You throw this out every single day and it is just patently false.

The Orioles spent 86 million dollars on payroll last season which is far from what the small market teams spent. It is almost double what they spent. You repeatedly type false statements and attack them like you've done something. Stop it.

Have you read this site lately?

For one, I don't post here every day. And can you relax? Why do you get so defensive and pissy all the time?

I haven't repeatedly typed anything that's made up. I believe I've said that it would be nice for the Orioles FO (Angelos) to deviate from the same holding pattern we've been in since 2007 (the not quite rebuilding, not quite contending limbo) and for that to happen, they would need to do something drastically different than lateral signings that don't improve on the on-field product.

That kind of signing would be a Prince Fielder type of thing. I understand the logic of not wanting to tie up our resources into one player for an extended period, but that's where the argument begins: some of us believe that we have a much deeper well, and some of us believe in some non-disclosed, self-imposed salary cap that the Orioles have.

That was one of the arguments during the "Status Quo" threads with myself and EddieMurrayFan.

I've been consistent in my belief that we have the money, but we just don't spend it - if Angelos was truly interested in buying the Dodgers, he has a treasure chest of considerable proportions. Which means he could spend the money on multiple big time free agents if he wanted to and not suffer greatly.

That pokes a massive hole in the idea that our resources would be "tied up" in a player during his most productive years while we were still far from contention. We've got to start somewhere. Right now, we're still in the same hole as before.

Where in all of this is a made-up scenario?

[sakata_catching]

Please quote just three examples of someone saying that we're a "small market" team. Or even just one. Please. You throw this out every single day and it is just patently false.

The Orioles spent 86 million dollars on payroll last season which is far from what the small market teams spent. It is almost double what they spent. You repeatedly type false statements and attack them like you've done something. Stop it.

Care to make it interesting, vatech?

[Frobby]

Whether the Orioles are a "small market" team or a "mid-market" team is just semantics, IMO. Like all teams, there is a limit to what the Orioles can spend, and the goal should be to develop a team that can win on a sustained basis, which requires staying within that limit. That is why the team needs to be careful to spend its money intelligently, rather than just throw it around indiscriminately. Mind you, I am not discussing any specific move here, just stating a general principle. Nobody here really knows how much the Orioles can afford to spend, though lots of people pretend that they know.

[33rdst]

Please quote just three examples of someone saying that we're a "small market" team. Or even just one. Please. You throw this out every single day and it is just patently false.

The Orioles spent 86 million dollars on payroll last season which is far from what the small market teams spent. It is almost double what they spent. You repeatedly type false statements and attack them like you've done something. Stop it.

To be fair DD has referred to us as being a "small market" in a few interviews.

[TiredofLosing20]

Please quote just three examples of someone saying that we're a "small market" team. Or even just one. Please. You throw this out every single day and it is just patently false.

The Orioles spent 86 million dollars on payroll last season which is far from what the small market teams spent. It is almost double what they spent. You repeatedly type false statements and attack them like you've done something. Stop it.

In fairness, I think some folks here use the term "small market" to state that we are not "big market". I may be a violator. I know at some point I tried to clarify that by saying we are really a mid-market team. You are absolutely correct that we are not a small market team and from the ML salary side they don't spend like a small market team.

Its the argument that has gone on here since probably this site was created, its about maximizing the resources while properly evaluating risk. It is much easier to say Angelos bad, no want to win, no spend money, but the reality of it is much more complicated than that.

If I had to speculate, I would say that if Angelos were left entirely to his own devices ala Jerry Jones, our payroll would be higher.

[weams]

Whether the Orioles are a "small market" team or a "mid-market" team is just semantics, IMO. Like all teams, there is a limit to what the Orioles can spend, and the goal should be to develop a team that can win on a sustained basis, which requires staying within that limit. That is why the team needs to be careful to spend its money intelligently, rather than just throw it around indiscriminately. Mind you, I am not discussing any specific move here, just stating a general principle. Nobody here really knows how much the Orioles can afford to spend, though lots of people pretend that they know.

I have no idea how much the Orioles could spend before a bankrutcy auction.

[TiredofLosing20]

I haven't repeatedly typed anything that's made up. I believe I've said that it would be nice for the Orioles FO (Angelos) to deviate from the same holding pattern we've been in since 1998 (the not quite rebuilding, not quite contending limbo) and for that to happen, they would need to do something drastically different than lateral signings that don't improve on the on-field product.

Fixed that for you

[weams]

Care to make it interesting, vatech?

I have mistaken referred to the Orioles as small market in that the area of responcibility stretched 550 miles from north to south in order to make them mid market. Then MLB thought it would be brite to carve that into two franchises.

I think the MASN thing keeps us from being truly small market, and Peter always has spent like a mid market.