Anyone getting tired of the "do-nothing" approach???

[Can_of_corn]

The whole point of every professional sports team is to make money, plain and simple. If winning helps turn a larger profit great! Anyone who thinks pro sports teams are run for any other reason than profit is mistaken. If this bothers you, then following a pro team might not be the best thing to spend your time doing.

I disagree.

Certain teams, certain years it happens.

The Tigers for instance have put profitability behind a title for a few years now.

Clearly almost always you are correct and I think very few teams end up in the red during any given year.

[Can_of_corn]

Holy balls, you're completely missing my point.

You can have both if you have an ownership group that cares about winning. Look at the Cardinals.

No I'm not.

There is no point in comparing the NBA and MLB when in the NBA the regular season doesn't really matter and in MLB the playoffs are a complete crap shoot.

Baseball teams are built for the regular season. NBA teams are built for the playoffs.

[osfan83]

No I'm not.

There is no point in comparing the NBA and MLB when in the NBA the regular season doesn't really matter and in MLB the playoffs are a complete crap shoot.

Baseball teams are built for the regular season. NBA teams are built for the playoffs.

Correct...You can come in 8th place and make the playoffs in the NBA. .500 teams can make the NBA playoffs.

Not many .500 teams make the MLB playoffs....plus you have to play 162 games so it's harder to "get lucky" and get in. If you are one of the top 4 teams in your league after 162 games, you have to be good. The playoffs are somewhat of a crap shoot. There is no doubt in my mind that the 2014 Red Sox could win 4 of 7 games from the 2014 Giants. But the Sox couldn't be lucky enough of 162 to make it to the playoffs.

[LoyalBirdFan]

NBA champions often win 80% of the games they play. It's the nature of the sport. It's not easy to beat a team that goes 62-20.

Baseball is different, the real good teams win 3 out 5 games and the bad teams win 2 out of 5 games. Anything can happen. I suppose if a baseball team goes into the playoffs with a 130-32 record, you could compare the two.

[Reboulet'sStache]

Holy balls, you're completely missing my point.

You can have both if you have an ownership group that cares about winning. Look at the Cardinals.

But the Cardinals don't win by doing the things you are advocating.

[Can_of_corn]

Their ownership had a chance to add guys who would give them a better chance to win and went cheap instead.

Our ownership has a chance to add guys who would give us a better chance to win and are going cheap instead. And let me be clear, I am not advocating for a Scherzer type. Those pitcher contracts are insane.

An NBA roster is 13 players and they have minimum and maximum payroll levels.

Baseball has a 25 (40) man roster and no structured payroll.

They are not alike.

You can not prove a baseball point by referencing what an NBA team does.

[Can_of_corn]

They don't spend money like morons, but they spend when they feel it's necessary, and they rely on homegrown players. It's exactly what I'm talking about. You guys are just doing this because I'm the one saying this stuff.

Don't flatter yourself.

[LoyalBirdFan]

Their ownership had a chance to add guys who would give them a better chance to win and went cheap instead.

Our ownership has a chance to add guys who would give us a better chance to win and are going cheap instead. And let me be clear, I am not advocating for a Scherzer type. Those pitcher contracts are insane.

I understand what you are saying.

I also trust those in charge of the Orioles right now and believe they are doing what they think is best. So far I don't have complaints. I'd like to have seen Nick remain an Oriole, but I understand why he isn't.

I've resigned myself to the fact that I won't have high expectations next year unless something drastic changes before the season starts. Last year I thought they'd win 90+ games. I still think we'll compete next year (pitching and defense).

I have no problem with it if I believe the organization is heading in the right direction.

[Can_of_corn]

Seriously bro? Seriously?

I am comparing nothing other than ownership and how little they care about winning. NOTHING ELSE.

And you know nothing about how the various ownership groups feel.

You have not met them, you have not talked to them you do not know them.

[Reboulet'sStache]

They don't spend money like morons, but they spend when they feel it's necessary, and they rely on homegrown players. It's exactly what I'm talking about. You guys are just doing this because I'm the one saying this stuff.

Huh? I don't know you from Adam. Why would I care what "you" are saying?

The Cardinals don't spend much money. Their payroll is close to ours. They win by doing exactly what a team like us should do. Build the farm, have cost controlled high end talent, lock up some players long term, sell some players at peak value, and when the farm is humming, trade from it for cost controlled talent.

We aren't in the position to do what you are advocating, and even when a team we should be modeled after, like the Cardinals, are in that position, they don't.

[OFFNY]

They don't spend money like morons, but they spend when they feel it's necessary, and they rely on homegrown players. It's exactly what I'm talking about. You guys are just doing this because I'm the one saying this stuff.

Why would it be because you're saying it?

[Dark Helmet]

But the Cardinals don't win by doing the things you are advocating.

So Matt Holliday, Kyle Lohse, and Jhonny Peraltra weren't FA they gave a good chunk of change to? They didn't just give up one of their top young pitchers for a 1 year rental? Hmmm.

[MemorialStadKid]

Winter meetings are rolling on and the Orioles haven't done... much.

Hearing we'll get a Rule 5 on the way out.

I guess that's something.

MSK

[Reboulet'sStache]

So Matt Holliday, Kyle Lohse, and Jhonny Peraltra weren't FA they gave a good chunk of change to? They didn't just give up one of their top young pitchers for a 1 year rental? Hmmm.

What pitching prospect? Miller? Miller is past a prospect, and every easily could just be a reliever at this point. Although I'd be willing to acknowledge he brings more value than the Braves gave up.

But they did these things after their team was locked in. Cost controlled players at the major league level, with high upside. A stocked farm system constantly feeding them prospects.

The Orioles haven't reached that point yet. I don't think you understand that this is a team still rebuilding. At some point, we can make these deals, and in some ways we have (EdRod for Miller). But you have to build a foundation before you say, "we are just a shortstop away, and it doesn't matter really how he performs, because we have so much flexibility right now." The Orioles aren't there yet. We're only 3 years removed from being the joke of baseball, and in some ways, we have used a lot of smoke and mirrors to quickly get to this point. For a team looking to still turn it around, flexibility is key, and avoiding contracts with serious diminishing returns is key.

It's like the Cubs. The Cubs went through a rebuilding phase. It's only after they got to the point where they said, "we've stocked the farm. the team is loaded with enough cost controlled players to be competitive for a long time," that they went after a Lester. Until then they emphasized avoiding bad contracts and remaining flexible.

[tntoriole]

What pitching prospect? Miller? Miller is past a prospect' date=' and every easily could just be a reliever at this point. Although I'd be willing to acknowledge he brings more value than the Braves gave up.

But they did these things after their team was locked in. Cost controlled players at the major league level, with high upside. A stocked farm system constantly feeding them prospects.

The Orioles haven't reached that point yet. I don't think you understand that this is a team still rebuilding. At some point, we can make these deals, and in some ways we have (EdRod for Miller). But you have to build a foundation before you say, "we are just a shortstop away, and it doesn't matter really how he performs, because we have so much flexibility right now." The Orioles aren't there yet. We're only 3 years removed from being the joke of baseball, and in some ways, we have used a lot of smoke and mirrors to quickly get to this point. For a team looking to still turn it around, flexibility is key, and avoiding contracts with serious diminishing returns is key.

It's like the Cubs. The Cubs went through a rebuilding phase. It's only after they got to the point where they said, "we've stocked the farm. the team is loaded with enough cost controlled players to be competitive for a long time," that they went after a Lester. Until then they emphasized avoiding bad contracts and remaining flexible.[/quote']

I agreed with you right up until the Cubs example. When the Os win more games in the AL East for the last three years, it's smoke and mirrors. But the Cubs, who have won nothing ,are now "competitive enough for a long time" that they can go after a Lester. I think the Lester contract will be the shining mistake of their "rebuild" and will set them back quite a ways. Because it is Lester and his big money deal and then the ex Orioles Arrieta, Hammel, Wada who make up most of their "competitive" rotation. I remain skeptical. Lester was terrible as recently as 2012 and Arrieta, Hammel, Wada are nowhere near as "loaded" a team as one might hope.