Not signing Miler and Cruz is going to haunt this team and it's fans for years to come......

[Nevermore]

I was rather surprised by the animosity that some of the longer tenured posters here, who seem to be in favor of not signing Miller or Cruz, expressed towards those that did favor their signing. In the end we are all oriole fans. Some here really do express a know it all type of attitude.

Actually, not necessarily true. I recently re-iterated my opinion that the O's organization should have resigned Cruz. Some people disagreed, we exchanged a few posts and have seemed to come to an agreement to disagree on this point.

I am fairly new and I don't see myself in either camp. I'm not an Angelos fan; I think he ruined the team back in the late 1990s and I took various folks' advice and became an "Orioles Fan in Exile," refusing to spend money to give to an owner that I saw as being toxic. It was not always about Angelos being cheap, as he spent a ton of money to get us Rafael Palmeiro. It was mainly about Angelos's insistence on interfering with his front office baseball guys. Very few people wanted to work for him, so we ended up getting people like Sid Thrift, the worst GM in baseball history. I also was firmly against signing Albert Belle, as for me, character does count. Baseball players cannot always be expected to be perfect gentlemen or be like Cal Ripken. But (and this is just one person's opinion) Belle was one of the most thuggish players in MLB at the time. I did not want to root for thugs, even if they wore orange and black. So I gave up my 13 game partial plan and decided at the time to become mainly a Ravens fan. Yeah, I know that Belle is a saint compared to some of the thugs who play NFL football for the Ravens (ano other NFL teams). Okay, I'm likely in denial as far as Ravens players go, but so be it. My main problem with the Orioles, under Angelos is the 14 straight years of losing teams. I'm not clear as to whether Angelos spent too much or too little money. All I remember are those horrible teams, year after year. I remember Angelos saying that he would not give a multi-year contract to a pitcher, and thus Mike Mussina went on his way to the Yankees. Obviously, either I read wrong or else Angelos changed his position on this because now we have Ubaldo and his 4-year deal.

At any rate, around 3 years ago, I noticed that the Orioles were actually winning games, contesting for playoff positions. Cautiously, I cam out of Oriole Exile and started watching games and then decided to attend some of them. I've said to myself (and I still sometimes say it) that the Orioles were winning in spite of Angelos. I do believe that Angelos arranged to get us Buck Showalter, first McPhail and now Dan Duquette. I'm a huge Buck Showalter fan. Not sure what I think of Duquette. And I was taken aback by his interest in going to the Blue Jays. I only discovered Orioles Hangout just this past year. I've enjoyed the discussions and the exchange of opinions.

I don't believe in handing money over to the next high-priced, flashy FA. I believe in spending smartly. Some high-priced FAs are worth it, many of them aren't. I don't believe for a second that Angelos can't afford what many other teams can afford. It's a matter of his priorities. Also in the judgment of DD that many of the high-priced FAs aren't worth their money.

So I'm just saying, in all of this rambling, I'm not sure what "side" I'm on. I'm on the side of the Orioles and their players. Whatever that means.

[DrungoHazewood]

The "we can spend more money" is a relavant point. Some of us choose to focus on variables contollable by the GM rather than dragging him into being a distracted idiot because he didn't spend money that was likely not available to him.. I don't see where the "Angelos can spend more money"point provides any meaningful baseball discussion. When baseball points are made, they are answered. Sorry, I just don't see the point as that meaningful.

I probably need to remind myself that there are folks here born circa 1990 who weren't really, fully cognizant of the last 15 years of baseball and the beyond that the full tenure of Angelos. I think for many people who were, we got tired of the 24/7/365 mantra of "if only Pete would increase payroll 50% all would be right with the world" about 2005. Yes, on some level that has some truth. But we never had any control over that, nor did the GM or the manager or the players. The budget is what it is, and I think it's a better experience for me, as a an Oriole fan, to brainstorm ideas about how to be competitive within the bounds of reality, rather than constantly taking the shortcut to "we should have signed a lot more better players."

[Ripken]

I've no objection to the level of payroll but rather its allocation. I would have signed Cruz and let Nick, Hardy, and Davis go. They were worried about the 4th year to Cruz and let him walk. Fine. Meanwhile, DD did very little this off season and now, with some of these guys turning back into pumpkins, we're likely not getting the picks for anyone but Chen. We'll have to use our pick(s) to sign good FAs if we actually plan to field a competitive team next year. Either that or Walker, Alvarez, Bundy, Gausman and others better start looking like good MLB players very soon. I suspect this is a 85 win team in 2015 and Dan has us in a very precarious spot for 2016.

[DrungoHazewood]

I was rather surprised by the animosity that some of the longer tenured posters here, who seem to be in favor of not signing Miller or Cruz, expressed towards those that did favor their signing. In the end we are all oriole fans. Some here really do express a know it all type of attitude.

I'm not at all surprised by the animosity of some of the folks who've been here 48 hours. There is this incredulity that it's not unanimous that the O's should have gone all in with money the GM didn't have access to, and at the expense of the few top prospects they have. You, yourself, accused me of being some kind of organizational plant because I didn't agree with you, and in fact think some of your logic is less than sound. It's amazing that someone can show up and within a few days have accused many of the longer tenured posters here of being little more than mouthpieces for an inept organization.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Hell islandecho I owned for 12 years. Won over 100 races for me.

You can be honest - the horse is the one making these posts, right?

[weams]

I've no objection to the level of payroll but rather its allocation. I would have signed Cruz and let Nick, Hardy, and Davis go. They were worried about the 4th year to Cruz and let him walk. Fine. Meanwhile, DD did very little this off season and now, with some of these guys turning back into pumpkins, we're likely not getting the picks for anyone but Chen. We'll have to use our pick(s) to sign good FAs if we actually plan to field a competitive team next year. Either that or Walker, Alvarez, Bundy, Gausman and others better start looking like good MLB players very soon. I suspect this is a 85 win team in 2015 and Dan has us in a very precarious spot for 2016.

This is a very reasonable post with actual ideas and some fact support that we want to see from those who wish to criticize the direction of the club. It is not rosey about the Orioles chances or supportive of the front office while making good counterpoint to some of us who believed that hanging on to our FAs to be and collecting picks was the correct strategy.

[weams]

I'm not at all surprised by the animosity of some of the folks who've been here 48 hours. There is this incredulity that it's not unanimous that the O's should have gone all in with money the GM didn't have access to, and at the expense of the few top prospects they have. You, yourself, accused me of being some kind of organizational plant because I didn't agree with you, and in fact think some of your logic is less than sound. It's amazing that someone can show up and within a few days have accused many of the longer tenured posters here of being little more than mouthpieces for an inept organization.

He's been here all along. In several different incarnations. We combined two.

[weams]

Actually, not necessarily true. I recently re-iterated my opinion that the O's organization should have resigned Cruz. Some people disagreed, we exchanged a few posts and have seemed to come to an agreement to disagree on this point.

I am fairly new and I don't see myself in either camp. I'm not an Angelos fan; I think he ruined the team back in the late 1990s and I took various folks' advice and became an "Orioles Fan in Exile," refusing to spend money to give to an owner that I saw as being toxic. It was not always about Angelos being cheap, as he spent a ton of money to get us Rafael Palmeiro. It was mainly about Angelos's insistence on interfering with his front office baseball guys. Very few people wanted to work for him, so we ended up getting people like Sid Thrift, the worst GM in baseball history. I also was firmly against signing Albert Belle, as for me, character does count. Baseball players cannot always be expected to be perfect gentlemen or be like Cal Ripken. But (and this is just one person's opinion) Belle was one of the most thuggish players in MLB at the time. I did not want to root for thugs, even if they wore orange and black. So I gave up my 13 game partial plan and decided at the time to become mainly a Ravens fan. Yeah, I know that Belle is a saint compared to some of the thugs who play NFL football for the Ravens (ano other NFL teams). Okay, I'm likely in denial as far as Ravens players go, but so be it. My main problem with the Orioles, under Angelos is the 14 straight years of losing teams. I'm not clear as to whether Angelos spent too much or too little money. All I remember are those horrible teams, year after year. I remember Angelos saying that he would not give a multi-year contract to a pitcher, and thus Mike Mussina went on his way to the Yankees. Obviously, either I read wrong or else Angelos changed his position on this because now we have Ubaldo and his 4-year deal.

At any rate, around 3 years ago, I noticed that the Orioles were actually winning games, contesting for playoff positions. Cautiously, I cam out of Oriole Exile and started watching games and then decided to attend some of them. I've said to myself (and I still sometimes say it) that the Orioles were winning in spite of Angelos. I do believe that Angelos arranged to get us Buck Showalter, first McPhail and now Dan Duquette. I'm a huge Buck Showalter fan. Not sure what I think of Duquette. And I was taken aback by his interest in going to the Blue Jays. I only discovered Orioles Hangout just this past year. I've enjoyed the discussions and the exchange of opinions.

I don't believe in handing money over to the next high-priced, flashy FA. I believe in spending smartly. Some high-priced FAs are worth it, many of them aren't. I don't believe for a second that Angelos can't afford what many other teams can afford. It's a matter of his priorities. Also in the judgment of DD that many of the high-priced FAs aren't worth their money.

So I'm just saying, in all of this rambling, I'm not sure what "side" I'm on. I'm on the side of the Orioles and their players. Whatever that means.

What I was trying to say was that there were not any sides. We can all agree or not agree about many different things. And what everyone here does agree on is that we will defend our right to be a community that respects each other and is not bullied by folks who just happen to pop in. We are Orioles fans here.

[mdbdotcom]

The debate boils down to this. Is the Angelos family doing everything they can do to make this franchise competitive or not? Are they raking in profits or spending as much as they can? It seems obvious to me that they are raking in profits, short changing the team. If you look at the posts of those that agree with me and look at the responses of those that disagree with me, you will see lots of sarcasm and superiority from those defending ownership. There are strong opinions each way, those on the side of cheap shouldn't be marginalized and vilified.

Which owners are spending every dollar they can to make their team competitive? Which ones are operating at break-even to win more? Which ones are putting their family fortunes at risk?

[weams]

The argument boils down to that for you. There isn't even an argument there to most of us. I tend to agree that more money could be spent without the Orioles losing money. Ok, now what? Should we just discuss how they could spend more every hour of every day forever? Or should we move on to what they should do based on the budget that has been established? I just don't know what good it does to whine constantly that PGA should spend more money.

The frustrating part to people that like to deal in realities is that almost all the arguments for Cruz, Miller, and other great additions focus on just adding to payroll and ignoring the budget. What a pointless argument. No kidding they would make us better. If you want to actually have a reasonable debate, start with a 120M budget and tell me who you would have removed in order to add those players and make sure you look at forward years too. Not just 2015.

I realized this will be ignored as it always is and I will once again be labeled an apologist who doesn't care about winning. Carry on with mischaracterizing the argument as a simple issue over how much to spend.

I would have signed Cruz and Non Tendered Davis. I would have traded for Travis Snyder at the meetings. Brian Matusz plus something. I would have attempted to trade a starter to give Gausman a slot all season. Maybe even Bud. I would not have traded Bundy at his lowest value. I would have tried to get more power arms for the bullpen at AAA. Maybe even signed a few to more money as a minor league contract. Especially more left-handed relievers. I would have Tendered De Aza and Wieters as Dan did. I would have traded Steve Clevenger and Ryan Webb and I would have resigned Delmon. There was not much else to do if you were keeping everyone else. Unfortunately for good clubs, you can't just trade away major pieces for prospects at any point.

[weams]

The argument boils down to that for you. There isn't even an argument there to most of us. I tend to agree that more money could be spent without the Orioles losing money.

Carry on with mischaracterizing the argument as a simple issue over how much to spend.

Many people would like to have the debate on what amount of payroll would be adequate to return the investors 5% annually and funnel the rest into product. We don't and can' know enough to put that in real terms and it is not realistic (There I used the word). No Major sports owner wants to be limited to the growth of valuation of his equity.

There was long ago a divide that occurred (when the Orioles were run poorly) by folks who wanted to pocket protest the team of their youth as adults by decrying the Angelos regime and withholding their financial support. That war, like the war between the states, is over. And we know which side won here as well.

[weams]

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php/145610-Are-We-Cheap-Or-Smart?highlight=sign+miller

You know this idea that there are just a bunch of homers on here is nonsense. Brianod started a thread in the offseason after Miller, Cruz, and Markakis signed elsewhere. "Are the Orioles cheap or smart?". Read it. It's a very balanced discussion with not one person, that I can see, having an issue with the OP questioning whether it wouldn't have been the right move to sign those guys.

This idea that anti Oriole posts just get unfairly shouted down. If someone poses a reasonable discussion, it gets reasonably discussed for the most part. It's the "The Orioles are stupid and I don't have to back it up" threads and posts that catch a lot of flack. I

It is a position that folks who are not part of the Hangout experience like to create to denigrate it. For the most part very balanced discussions work well here. It is a moderated forum though.

[mdbdotcom]

I would have signed Cruz and Non Tendered Davis. I would have traded for Travis Snyder at the meetings. Brian Matusz plus something. I would have attempted to trade a starter to give Gausman a slot all season. Maybe even Bud. I would not have traded Bundy at his lowest value. I would have tried to get more power arms for the bullpen at AAA. Maybe even signed a few to more money as a minor league contract. Especially more left-handed relievers. I would have Tendered De Aza and Wieters as Dan did. I would have traded Steve Clevenger and Ryan Webb and I would have resigned Delmon. There was not much else to do if you were keeping everyone else. Unfortunately for good clubs, you can't just trade away major pieces for prospects at any point.

I would not have given JJ an extension (yes, I know that happened during the playoffs), and would have moved Manny to SS instead. I would have tried to trade Chris Davis and Brian Matusz and would have non-tendered them if they hadn't been traded. I would have signed Melky Cabrera and Adam LaRoche (both of whom are off to terrible starts for the White Sox). I would have let Nick go and tried to sign Cruz. I would have been tempted to sign Miller, but I suspect he wanted to pitch for the Yankees or on another big stage (some players want that).

There are lots of things I would have done differently than DD did, but I don't question his commitment to the team or his effort to improve it. In the long run, I hope his decisions were right and mine were wrong.

If some posters need to put others in categories and my take makes me a front office apologist, so be it. It's a game. I'm trying to have fun. And, as an O's fan since the late '50s, I'm glad we're contending again.

I like our guys.

[weams]

Please do understand, that in order to be taken seriously in a ranting type of discussion a poster will need to have established some sort of track record at THIS site. I know that sounds like a superiority dance but it is how it works in any part of life. Make an impression, be taken seriously, make a difference. In that order.

[Crazysilver03]

I was rather surprised by the animosity that some of the longer tenured posters here, who seem to be in favor of not signing Miller or Cruz, expressed towards those that did favor their signing. In the end we are all oriole fans. Some here really do express a know it all type of attitude.

Maybe the animosity stems from the way you articulated your argument. Calling others names isn't a good way to get people to listen to your argument. But please do ignore that part and act like the victim.