The Kansas City Royals were 48-49 at this point last year

[Tx Oriole]

But they lost in the WS so their season was a failure.

I disagree. Going and losing is better than not going.

[HokieOs]

I disagree. Going and losing is better than not going.

I'm fairly sure Can_of_Corn was being sarcastic.

[OriolesMagic83]

The difference is the 2014 Royals had mojo and the O's have lost their mojo.

[Machado13]

That was a good team that gained confidence and realized their talent.

Os can get there but they need more talent. Snider, parmelee and Pearce won't get you anywhere...

Need a big bat and possibly another SP

[DrungoHazewood]

The Reds were 51-51 on 7/25/2014 and ended up with 76-86. You can look at that on both ways.

Right, while it's possible that you can be at .500 100 games in and win the Series, it's probably more appropriate to look at the results of all teams with a record around .500 at this point and see where they ended up. And the answer is almost certainly "around .500." The 1914 Braves were in last place in an eight-team league in early July and won the Series. Doesn't mean that being in last place in July is a prerequisite of winning the Series.

The Orioles under Buck Showalter

APR    64  55    0.538MAY    70  73    0.490JUN    74  61    0.548JUL    56  68    0.452AUG    78  59    0.569SEP    82  59    0.582

His best two months by a large margin are August and September. June is only that close to his 3rd best month because of this year's terrific June. It was only .523 coming into the season.

Buck's biggest strength is using that 40 man roster in September and it shows in the numbers.

Baseball is unique as far as I know, in that they allow teams to have a bunch of extra players around impacting the season during what should be the most important month. Because of the farm system concept and the contractual situations baseball allows teams to more-or-less throw in the towel or add a bunch of flexibility right in the middle of the pennant race. It's sometimes interesting (like the A's that year in the 70s where they just used four shortstops most of September, pinch hitting every time they came up), but is borderline making a farce of the pennant race in some cases. Is there any other sport that you see teams trading a major star to a contender 2/3rds of the way through the season? You don't have some team trading Peyton Manning to the Cowboys for games 12-16 and the playoffs.

[Moondoggie]

I was thinking: What do Cincinnati Reds fans think about the current fire sale? Will this affect their attendance? I remember during the AS game, during the HR Derby, when Todd Frazier was competing and I could hear the fans roaring for him. However, now there are rumors that Frazier is for sale. They've already gotten rid of Cueto.

So if O's management decides to become sellers and they offer Chen, Wieters, Davis, O'Day and other FAs, will this affect the attendance? Will fans be reluctant to support a franchise that has basically thrown in the towel? I know that OH members won't stop supporting the team, but what about the so-called "fan in the stands?" If O's management decides to throw in the towel, if I didn't already have a 29 game plan, I'd be less inclined to want to go to O's games. Especially that football season is upon us and the Ravens are seen to be a good, competitive team this year. Attendance might be a factor in a team's deciding on whether or not to become sellers.

I think Reds fans were prepared. It was widely assumed coming into the season that if they weren't in the race they'd be dealing at the trade deadline. Too many big contracts. Attendance will be down, but I think it would have been down anyway with them out of the race. I think most people show up to see the team be competitive, not just to see any particular player (unless it's somebody really special).

I think the same is true, attendance-wise, for the Orioles. Unless the O's get back into the thick of it, attendance will be dropping anyway. But you also have to look at future attendance, not just these final two months of the season. If somebody offers you players who you believe can help you be competitive in 2016 or 2017 and beyond, that's going to have a positive effect on future attendance. You're losing Davis, Wieters, Chen and most likely O'Day in two months anyway. So I think if you're Duquette and his team, you have to honestly assess this team's chances and weigh that against how much you can improve future teams.

I would imagine the Braves series could be an indicator of what might happen. If the O's sweep the Braves and close some ground against the Yanks and in the wild card, they might be more inclined to try to add someone and go for it. But if they lose two out of three and fall any further back, the writing might be on the wall. And, of course, the quality of offers they might get will have a lot to do with it as well.

[SteveA]

The difference is the 2014 Royals had mojo and the O's have lost their mojo.

Are any of the non contenders putting mojo on the trading block?

Philly has gone 8-1 since the break. Still out of it, but it seems like they might have some mojo they could deal to a contender.

[DrungoHazewood]

Are any of the non contenders putting mojo on the trading block?

Philly has gone 8-1 since the break. Still out of it, but it seems like they might have some mojo they could deal to a contender.

Just when a team starts looking really, historically kind of bad they go and ruin it with a 8-1 run. I really hope that sometime in my life I see a team beat the '62 Mets post-1900 record for futility. The 2003 Tigers had a shot, but they blew it. These Phillies were never in real contention, they didn't want it bad enough.

[Aglets]

Are any of the non contenders putting mojo on the trading block?

Philly has gone 8-1 since the break. Still out of it, but it seems like they might have some mojo they could deal to a contender.

The MacPhail Phactor.