Jump to content

Maryland To Big 10?!?!


JohnD

Recommended Posts

Does anyone think the ACC wants to lose Florida State a well? If, as some believe, a lowered exit fee for MD will give the incentive to FSU to bolt why would ACC agree to a lower fee?

Let's assume the ACC loses its mind and does just that, and MD gets away for a mere $20M do you think the ACC will collect that on some installment plan? Do you think Plank et.al will cover the university's total bill? My answer to both is "no way." The athletic program is going to be on the hook for millions, possibly tens of millions.

Meanwhile, if we had such generous donors, then why couldn't we rescue any of the seven programs that Loh and Anderson will evaluate to (see if it makes sense to) bring back? As to the slam dunk windfall for MD, I refer again to this quote

Florestano said the board of regents "perceived" that Maryland's financial future in the Big Ten was brighter, but that members are "still debating" the exact figures.

Keep in mind that the Big Ten distributes it's shares equally; more teams means the pie is being cut into smaller slices. If they go to 16 teams in the misnamed Big 10, the slices will get even smaller. MD may bring in the DC market, but Rutgers isn't going to mean anything big to NY, contrary to some pundits opinions.

The lacrosse program, for one, is screwed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I don't consider Maryland or Rutgers "lame".

"Lame" wasn't the right word, which is why I used it in quotes. I guess what I really mean is a third-rate program. These teams certainly aren't first tier athletic departments a la Texas or Alabama, and they aren't second rate departments like a Florida State. Teams like Maryland and Rutgers, as well as a school like UCONN who might replace Maryland, are mediocre programs both performance and revenue-wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone think the ACC wants to lose Florida State a well? If, as some believe, a lowered exit fee for MD will give the incentive to FSU to bolt why would ACC agree to a lower fee?

Let's assume the ACC loses its mind and does just that, and MD gets away for a mere $20M do you think the ACC will collect that on some installment plan? Do you think Plank et.al will cover the university's total bill? My answer to both is "no way." The athletic program is going to be on the hook for millions, possibly tens of millions.

They won't have to pay $50 mil because there really isn't a way to enforce it and there is no precedence.

"Missouri and Texas A&M technically should have paid more than $20 million each to leave the Big 12 for the SEC, but neither paid more than $13 million. The Big East has a 27-month exit process that reportedly costs $10 million, but Pittsburgh and Syracuse each paid $7.5 million and shortened the wait by a year. Odds are that Maryland will be able to negotiate a lower fee. In a worst case scenario the school could also take the conference to court, arguing that the $50 million fee is punitive."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/11/20/marylands-exit-fee-could-decide-the-future-of-the-acc/

Meanwhile, if we had such generous donors, then why couldn't we rescue any of the seven programs that Loh and Anderson will evaluate to (see if it makes sense to) bring back?

What Maryland needs to do, is just admit that these sports don't matter and they have no intention of saving them. Ultimately, it doesn't make sense to regardless. As far as donors go, donors donate to causes they care about. Since most people don't care about women's sports or swimming or track and field, they have fewer potential donors to their programs to save them. Meanwhile, Plank and other donors probably DO care about football or basketball, making them more likely to donate to a cause that would help those two teams and help cover the fees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone think the ACC wants to lose Florida State a well? If, as some believe, a lowered exit fee for MD will give the incentive to FSU to bolt why would ACC agree to a lower fee?

Let's assume the ACC loses its mind and does just that, and MD gets away for a mere $20M do you think the ACC will collect that on some installment plan? Do you think Plank et.al will cover the university's total bill? My answer to both is "no way." The athletic program is going to be on the hook for millions, possibly tens of millions.

Meanwhile, if we had such generous donors, then why couldn't we rescue any of the seven programs that Loh and Anderson will evaluate to (see if it makes sense to) bring back? As to the slam dunk windfall for MD, I refer again to this quote

Keep in mind that the Big Ten distributes it's shares equally; more teams means the pie is being cut into smaller slices. If they go to 16 teams in the misnamed Big 10, the slices will get even smaller. MD may bring in the DC market, but Rutgers isn't going to mean anything big to NY, contrary to some pundits opinions.

The lacrosse program, for one, is screwed.

Tony, you seem pretty upset, but I don't think you are seeing this too clearly.

I see articles on-line that have experts calling the Big10's increased revenue from adding Maryland and Rutgers as between $100M and $200M - so these two schools pay for themselves and generate excess $ to the existing teams. While the "exact figures" are still up for debate, consensus is that the Big10 will provide substantially more $ than the ACC. What might be a bigger debate is the viability of the ACC to exist as a very weak football conference if FSU or another school leaves - in which case Maryland could be left in a much weaker conference with a smaller sports budget.

Donors who might not put up $ to save women's swimming might put up the $ to better the football program.

Clearly, it is hoped that in this scenario that more $ for sports means more investment in the football program in terms of coaches and facilities resulting in, ultimately, a better product than can be achieved via the ACC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I missing something? OSU is undefeated and ranked no. 4 by AP. I don't see how their transition has weakened the conference, though OSU being ineligible for a bowl hurts their profile this year.

I don't think OSU is anywhere near where Meyer will have them in two or three years. They barely beat Indiana, should have lost to Wisconsin, etc. These are close wins in a relatively weak conference, IMO. Michigan is again between coaches but appears on the right track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They won't have to pay $50 mil because there really isn't a way to enforce it and there is no precedence.

"Missouri and Texas A&M technically should have paid more than $20 million each to leave the Big 12 for the SEC, but neither paid more than $13 million. The Big East has a 27-month exit process that reportedly costs $10 million, but Pittsburgh and Syracuse each paid $7.5 million and shortened the wait by a year. Odds are that Maryland will be able to negotiate a lower fee. In a worst case scenario the school could also take the conference to court, arguing that the $50 million fee is punitive."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/11/20/marylands-exit-fee-could-decide-the-future-of-the-acc/

What Maryland needs to do, is just admit that these sports don't matter and they have no intention of saving them. Ultimately, it doesn't make sense to regardless. As far as donors go, donors donate to causes they care about. Since most people don't care about women's sports or swimming or track and field, they have fewer potential donors to their programs to save them. Meanwhile, Plank and other donors probably DO care about football or basketball, making them more likely to donate to a cause that would help those two teams and help cover the fees.

Go back and read my point about the fee being reduced to $20 million. It leads to basically my agreeing to your other point about the programs that were cut. Specifically, I find this talk about reviving those other programs disingenuous at a minimum, and if I be so bold, intellectually dishonest for the reasons I have already stated.

More Bravo Sierra is how this will help academically as if we have a bunch of schlubs in the ACC. We don't. In is decision, university put the football program ahead of all others. Maybe if the AD wasn't such a screw up with his hire of the football coach, the program might be a little more respectable. We've sold out for an unknown pile of money at the end of the rainbow, while in two years, we're on the hook for millions.

I don't care if we're only playing Duke and UNC less in basketball, the ACC is still our tradition. Maybe it's because I'm an alumni of almost thirty years that tradition means more to me than the it does the twitter generation. I fully realize that my position may be as popular as Forrest Gump at a Black Panther party, but the University sold out its heritage in a way. I've personally never found the excuse everyone else is doing it to be a valid reason to do the wrong thing, but hey that's just me.

Much more recent grads such as the Ravens Torrey Smith feel the same way. Tom McMillen, whose days at Maryland preceded mine, said the process was rushed, and not thought out. All sides weren't studied. This begs the one word question, "why?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go back and read my point about the fee being reduced to $20 million. It leads to basically my agreeing to your other point about the programs that were cut. Specifically, I find this talk about reviving those other programs disingenuous at a minimum, and if I be so bold, intellectually dishonest for the reasons I have already stated.

More Bravo Sierra is how this will help academically as if we have a bunch of schlubs in the ACC. We don't. In is decision, university put the football program ahead of all others. Maybe if the AD wasn't such a screw up with his hire of the football coach, the program might be a little more respectable. We've sold out for an unknown pile of money at the end of the rainbow, while in two years, we're on the hook for millions.

I don't care if we're only playing Duke and UNC less in basketball, the ACC is still our tradition. Maybe it's because I'm an alumni of almost thirty years that tradition means more to me than the it does the twitter generation. I fully realize that my position may be as popular as Forrest Gump at a Black Panther party, but the University sold out its heritage in a way. I've personally never found the excuse everyone else is doing it to be a valid reason to do the wrong thing, but hey that's just me.

Much more recent grads such as the Ravens Torrey Smith feel the same way. Tom McMillen, whose days at Maryland preceded mine, said the process was rushed, and not thought out. All sides weren't studied. This begs the one word question, "why?"

If you still don;t know the answer after everything everyone has posted than you just are thinking too much with your heart and not your brain my friend. I understand the disappointment for some of the alumni, but honestly, outside of the Duke and NC basketball games, is there some other rivalry with another ACC team that you are going to really miss?

Are you a lacrosse guy? I can see the lacrosse folks being upset since the ACC is the best conference for lacrosse, but as a wrestling fan, I'm pumped that Maryland will now be on the BTN and I'll be able to watch some of the local wrestlers wrestle on TV in the future. I understand this is an emotional event and I certainly don't want to downplay your thoughts or points, but at the end of the day, I truly think playing in the Big Ten will help the football team recruit better players and that means better Maryland teams in the future. Add in the windfall of extra money and that means more opportunities for student athletes in more sports and that's a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go back and read my point about the fee being reduced to $20 million. It leads to basically my agreeing to your other point about the programs that were cut. Specifically, I find this talk about reviving those other programs disingenuous at a minimum, and if I be so bold, intellectually dishonest for the reasons I have already stated.

More Bravo Sierra is how this will help academically as if we have a bunch of schlubs in the ACC. We don't. In is decision, university put the football program ahead of all others. Maybe if the AD wasn't such a screw up with his hire of the football coach, the program might be a little more respectable. We've sold out for an unknown pile of money at the end of the rainbow, while in two years, we're on the hook for millions.

I don't care if we're only playing Duke and UNC less in basketball, the ACC is still our tradition. Maybe it's because I'm an alumni of almost thirty years that tradition means more to me than the it does the twitter generation. I fully realize that my position may be as popular as Forrest Gump at a Black Panther party, but the University sold out its heritage in a way. I've personally never found the excuse everyone else is doing it to be a valid reason to do the wrong thing, but hey that's just me.

Much more recent grads such as the Ravens Torrey Smith feel the same way. Tom McMillen, whose days at Maryland preceded mine, said the process was rushed, and not thought out. All sides weren't studied. This begs the one word question, "why?"

1) Money

2) Money

3) Money

4) Just as good a basketball conference

5) Better football conference

6) Hope of better football recruiting

7) Much better chance of keeping and returning sports in trouble

There are more reasons to do it, then there is not to. If you're biggest concern is the 50M exit fee, you're overthinking that aspect of it. It's going to court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Money

2) Money

3) Money

4) Just as good a basketball conference

5) Better football conference

6) Hope of better football recruiting

7) Much better chance of keeping and returning sports in trouble

There are more reasons to do it, then there is not to. If you're biggest concern is the 50M exit fee, you're overthinking that aspect of it. It's going to court.

You could have stopped after three points. We're going to get our tail kicked worse, if possible in the Big 10 football conference. "Hope of better recruiting" is subjective and I argue may not be the case. I'm not a "hope and change" kind of guy;). I've already stated why chance of returning sports is total, flaming, B.S.
Exactly. We've been getting our heads kicked in by West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Florida State and Miami for years. When we were good, we were able to beat a lot of them and if the recruiting picks up (and yes, I think being able to sell going to Michigan and Ohio state will help), Maryland can become a solid football program. Now what they really need to do is have a stadium built closer to the highways so getting to a game is not such a horrible experience.
It's not a given that recruiting picks up. Here's one example:

Torrey Smith

@TorreySmithWR

RT @kramerd: @TorreySmithWR would you have still been a #terp if they played in the #big10?...nah I would've been a Hokie

As to moving the stadium, I have to politely assume that you didn't go to MD. Yes, the stadium entrance is a couple miles from the beltway, off of University Blvd, which you can get to by first driving down Rte. 1. However, there aren't any places on campus which are closer to a highway. Therefore, the stadium in your suggestion would have to be located off campus. That's where we will have to disagree a lot. Having the stadium on campus is most convenient to the thousands of students living in the dorms, and does not hurt those who commute to campus. In short, moving the stadium to serve the outside fans alienates the student population and does not make sense.

If you still don;t know the answer after everything everyone has posted than you just are thinking too much with your heart and not your brain my friend. I understand the disappointment for some of the alumni, but honestly, outside of the Duke and NC basketball games, is there some other rivalry with another ACC team that you are going to really miss?

Are you a lacrosse guy? I can see the lacrosse folks being upset since the ACC is the best conference for lacrosse, but as a wrestling fan, I'm pumped that Maryland will now be on the BTN and I'll be able to watch some of the local wrestlers wrestle on TV in the future. I understand this is an emotional event and I certainly don't want to downplay your thoughts or points, but at the end of the day, I truly think playing in the Big Ten will help the football team recruit better players and that means better Maryland teams in the future. Add in the windfall of extra money and that means more opportunities for student athletes in more sports and that's a good thing.

My question "why" was in regard to McMillen's points. Why was the process rushed? Why weren't all sides considered? Why have a vote when three or four of the sixteen regents were not present? Why were the exact economic benefits not specified to the board(they were perceived)?

I used to attend all the football games when I was there, and the lacrosse games, and as many basketball games as I could get tickets to see. You're talking to someone who would join the line at Cole Field House at 3 a.m. to score tickets for Duke, or North Carolina, or Virginia back in the days of Buck Williams and Albert King. I remember the days of coach Lefty Driesell, Tom McMillen and Lenny Elmore.

I'll miss Virginia as well. Virginia, UNC, and Duke are still far more interesting to me than any of the teams in the Big 10. Ten years from now, Maryland-Rutgers or Maryland-Purdue will still not mean the same to me as the ACC rivalries I have known for over forty years.

Maybe I should get with the times. Here's an idea, since the Orioles will never be able to compete financially in the division that they are in, I'm going to start a petition to Bud Selig to have the O's switch places with the Phillies and join the N.L. East? Does anyone want to sign that petition also? Anyone? Bueller?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, Tony. Maybe this is rushed, but I don't see how this isn't the best decision for Maryland.

There's a big arms race going on in college sports and it looks like the ACC and Big East are going be left behind to an extent that could mean between $5M and $15M in lower annual revenues per school. Which side of the fence to you want Maryland to be on?

Maryland is in the unique position of having its athletic department finances brilliantly mismanaged. It appeared to have been on the verge of cancelling additional sports and being in an annual deficit situation for a long time.

Do you sit by and watch other teams join what are likely to be the four 16 team superconferences or try your best to make the status quo work for you and the ACC (a decision which could have large consequences)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, Tony. Maybe this is rushed, but I don't see how this isn't the best decision for Maryland.

There's a big arms race going on in college sports and it looks like the ACC and Big East are going be left behind to an extent that could mean between $5M and $15M in lower annual revenues per school. Which side of the fence to you want Maryland to be on?

Maryland is in the unique position of having its athletic department finances brilliantly mismanaged. It appeared to have been on the verge of cancelling additional sports and being in an annual deficit situation for a long time.

Do you sit by and watch other teams join what are likely to be the four 16 team superconferences or try your best to make the status quo work for you and the ACC (a decision which could have large consequences)?

Allow me to take a bit of a long and winding road to answer you. My background is working with Congressional committees dealing with government funding. Have you ever noticed that when a politician says we need to raise taxes (or in Maryland, build a sixth casino), it's always for the schools. After all, what heartless bastard would ever refuse to support our school children?

The truth is, if the entity took a zero-based review of its books, the money for schools is there, that is, if they were willing to take the money from far less essential programs. That doesn't happen because government always wants more, not less. (Heaven forbid they learn to live within a budget like Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public) So what happens is the school kids are dangled out there as a shameless way of getting people to willingly, happily, pony up more than they would otherwise. O.K. Soprano, where are you going with this?

Similarly, Maryland's athletic department could have politically raised the money, with the big push being it's for football or basketball, (and oh by the way, in small print, the athletic program at large) and diverted some of that money to the rest. After all, yesterday, Loh said the department was self-sustaining. Since, the athletic department is one big "self-sustaining" pot of money, the theory is if football gets more money, money will trickle down to the rest. That's the supposed argument for this deal anyway. Now if that premise is wrong, and the fact is we need to greatly increase outside revenue sources, it indicates an admitted failure on the part of the department to raise sufficient contributions.

Wait a minute, if that is the case, I keep coming back to the same question. Where is this $20 million or $50 million or pick-a-number-out-of-a-hat million coming from in 2014? Whatever extra we're going to get from the Big 10, it will be incrementally, some assume that $5 or $10 million a year, not in one lump sum. Therefore, we need these Grand Canyon deep pockets to pay that bill which comes due in less than two years. Assuming we have the means to raise that huge sum of money, why didn't we before when the university needed them?

Big money donors like Kevin Plank are happy with the move. Maybe he has plans to make back the money and then some selling Big Ten UA clothes and uniforms. However, I personally know of six donors, albeit on a much, much lower scale than Plank, who are now withdrawing their support. After all, they are thinking, if the University can throw away $20 million or more hedging on a long-term gain, then why do they need little ole' me? The economy is tough enough as it is.

In short, I agree with your point about "athletic department finances brilliantly mismanaged." But now, we are all to agree to give more money to the same group that wasted so much money in the hope that they'll change and become better stewards. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice....

We had to go out and sell our tradition, to bail out, and reward those who screwed up, akin to allowing politicians to raise taxes. That concept absolutely disgusts me. Here's my deal. Clean house and fire those incompetent buffoons!! Get someone in there who has a clue how to manage money.

As to those superconferences, where does UNC and Duke fit in that scenario? Anyone who thinks one will leave the ACC without the other is absolutely kidding themselves. If the ACC were to collapse upon itself like a supernova, then couldn't it make more sense for Maryland, UNC, Duke, and others to sell themselves as a package to the highest bidder with the sum greater than the individual parts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the particulars of who is donating what to pay for what and who spent the $ that was in the cookie jar.

I just know at a post-baseball draft hooters drinkathon two years ago a very good friend of mine kept chirping about the greatness of 27 sports - 1 team Maryland and now here we are with UMd having dumped several teams, on the verge of dumping more and apparently in financial straits for getting rid of an 8-4 coach who loved the school. I don't understand if there are funds elsewhere in the school's budget that administrators won't use to pay off athletic department debts, if there are alumni who should help pay off the debt but won't or what it means that Maryland might be "self-sustaining" on one hand and yet appear ready to cut several sports on the other.

What I do know is that the Big10 is offering the financially challenged Maryland administration a chance to pull in an addition $6M-$10M per year in revenue annually. I don't know if any ACC separation fee is being put up by an alumni, but it could be paid off using a loan from almost anyone including the Big10 where the loan is paid off from a portion of the incremental revenue. I don't see what the big deal is. No alumni need to be involved.

Maryland brings a lot to the table - offering a big state school alumni and perhaps the best access to the DC market of any school in the area.. IMO, the bigger question is, finances and administration and athletic department shenanigans aside, .... do you want Maryland in the Big10? Could there be a bigger opportunity elsewhere? Do you want to risk Maryland being left out of the super 64 scenario with 4 major conferences of 16 teams?

It seems the Big10 is going to be a winning conference in the super64 scenario and, after watching the moves by the ACC, Big East last year to strengthen themselves, the Big10 is making its power play. If you are given a ticket on the power play, do you turn this down? At what risk? Do you think the SEC will come calling for Maryland or that the BigEast and ACC could figure out a way to join hands? Because, if you are on the outside of the super64 looking in, you could be looking at an Athletic Department budget $6M-$10M lower than 64 other D1 schools - besides your current problems. That is a tough obstacle to overcome when bidding on the services of top basketball and football coaches, providing top facilities, etc. Think of how effective Oregon has been in deploying the additional funds its mega-rich alumni provided ....

Finally, I remember last year or two years ago when Kansas was so concerned about its fate. Bill Self was very upset that a top basketball school without a decent football program was going to be in dire straits. I think Duke is in the same boat - weak football team, smallish alumni base relative to the big state schools, etc. I see top football programs and big markets in Florida, Texas and other places so I don't think it would be wise for Maryland to tie its future to UNC and Duke.

The power conferences are going to make their power plays. I think it is better to join them when offered. Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ACC wasn't the ACC anymore. I didn't like adding Big East schools from the start. They don't play "ACC schools" often enough for my liking. And, who knows what other shoes could fall that could really cripple the ACC. For instance, I could see UNC, Clemson, FSU all heading to the SEC. And who knows what Miami will do. I think MD got out before the ACC started really falling apart. College football drives the bus, and the ACC is driven by college basketball for now. I think it wil lend up a conference of basketball schools without much football to speak of - and MD is trying to avoid becoming one of those schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could have stopped after three points. We're going to get our tail kicked worse, if possible in the Big 10 football conference. "Hope of better recruiting" is subjective and I argue may not be the case. I'm not a "hope and change" kind of guy;). I've already stated why chance of returning sports is total, flaming, B.S.

It's not a given that recruiting picks up. Here's one example:

Torrey Smith

@TorreySmithWR

RT @kramerd: @TorreySmithWR would you have still been a #terp if they played in the #big10?...nah I would've been a Hokie

As to moving the stadium, I have to politely assume that you didn't go to MD. Yes, the stadium entrance is a couple miles from the beltway, off of University Blvd, which you can get to by first driving down Rte. 1. However, there aren't any places on campus which are closer to a highway. Therefore, the stadium in your suggestion would have to be located off campus. That's where we will have to disagree a lot. Having the stadium on campus is most convenient to the thousands of students living in the dorms, and does not hurt those who commute to campus. In short, moving the stadium to serve the outside fans alienates the student population and does not make sense.

My question "why" was in regard to McMillen's points. Why was the process rushed? Why weren't all sides considered? Why have a vote when three or four of the sixteen regents were not present? Why were the exact economic benefits not specified to the board(they were perceived)?

I used to attend all the football games when I was there, and the lacrosse games, and as many basketball games as I could get tickets to see. You're talking to someone who would join the line at Cole Field House at 3 a.m. to score tickets for Duke, or North Carolina, or Virginia back in the days of Buck Williams and Albert King. I remember the days of coach Lefty Driesell, Tom McMillen and Lenny Elmore.

I'll miss Virginia as well. Virginia, UNC, and Duke are still far more interesting to me than any of the teams in the Big 10. Ten years from now, Maryland-Rutgers or Maryland-Purdue will still not mean the same to me as the ACC rivalries I have known for over forty years.

Maybe I should get with the times. Here's an idea, since the Orioles will never be able to compete financially in the division that they are in, I'm going to start a petition to Bud Selig to have the O's switch places with the Phillies and join the N.L. East? Does anyone want to sign that petition also? Anyone? Bueller?

I have two quick points.

1) If the sports that got cut do not come back, and the financial situation of other sports does not get better, then anyone who supports this move will be wrong and Maryland may even lose some fans because that may be the main reason for doing this move. Is money to be able to bring back sports, and support the ones we have better.

2) I love Torrey Smith, but just because he wouldn't have gone to Maryland if we were in the B1G does not mean that there wouldn't have been someone who may have considered us more and chosen us if we were in the B1G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also there is this from testudotimes:

But even with it, that's some serious dough. Maybe it ends up being, say, $80mil, a rather pessimistic figure - that's still enough to solve many of Maryland's desperate financial problems. It should drastically accelerate their timeline for paying off their debt, and grant them flexibility in other sports while they're doing so.

Maryland will get this sort of payout immediately due to essentially what is a loan from the Big Ten. Usually, a new member isn't granted full revenue-sharing rights immediately, and technically Maryland isn't either. But the Big Ten is more or less "loaning" the money to Maryland interest-free, and will allow the Terps to pay it back once they pay off their debt and begin running a surplus. Basically, they're giving Maryland a quick way out of their troubles now, letting them make the department sustainable and viable without major shackles, and then they'll collect when the capability to pay has returned.

Again, those of us who support this move mostly support it because it is supposed to bring back sports that got cut (over time) and be able to financially support other sports much better. If I'm wrong, and that doesn't happen, then I'll be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • I think Kjerstad rates a Page 1 mention.     Its probably too tough for a hitter to not hit for a big chunk of his early 20's, but if he can get back to who Elias thought he was, he could ease the pain of the lineup for the Jose Abreu type anchor a lot of us had as an offseason priority. If the magic dust falls on Basallo like Gunnar, has the Organization ever had a player like that?    Just going from memory, Schoop, Eduardo and Ponson feel like the best IFA's the org has grown.
    • Grayson is a good pick. When was the last time we had a true Ace? If he can become that guy, along with Adley and Gunnar, that is a very strong core to build around. If he can raise his floor from above average MLB starter to perennial Cy Young candidate, that would be pretty huge.  Cowser has slipped in a lot of rankings. If he can bounce back he might be a bit of a sleeper pick. 
    • Obviously there were several fits and starts.  I’d say though that it took 4 years starting with the Bedard/Tejada sell-off in the 2007-08 offseason. Or you could date it back to the 2000 sell-off if you prefer.  
    • I agree, which is why I phrased this as him “looking like a guy who’ll be a true no. 1 starter,” rather than saying  he would already be one.   
    • I'll bring the doom and the gloom. The biggest development in 2023 will be the pitching taking a step backward and becoming an obvious roadblock toward the O's becoming contenders.
    • I think the biggest development will be IF Elias flips the switch and starts 1) trading prospects for top talent, and/or 2) spending money for top talent in the first half of the 2023/4 offseason.  If the next 12 months really do start to see "liftoff" type moves, that is the biggest development in making the Orioles consistent contenders for the rest of the 2020s. If those moves don't start happening, it stays more of a tightrope walk. 
    • I think Rodriguez is the obvious answer here. Everyone else will hopefully be supplemental players to the big prospects…Rutschman, Henderson, and Rodriguez. I think Hall is a guy that will be really important this year. He is pretty much ready and what’s expected out of him is varied. He could be a top of the rotation starter or he could be a bullpen clean up guy. Either one wouldn’t surprise me whatsoever but obviously if he can be even a middle of the rotation guy then it takes a lot of pressure off everyone else.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...