Darren O'Day...

[weams]

Those people are unaware that three of the five teams in the AL West have no state income tax.

True. And New York may still provide advantages. Especially as an aging veteran.

[sportsfan8703]

O'day is a beast. Best case scenario for us is that he signs 3/24. Hopefully he values living here with his newborn and his wife working in DC. Worst case scenario he does value living here and replaces Storen as the Nats set up guy for more money than we are offering. Or going to the Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jays.

[Nevermore]

Balderdash.

Folks like to re-imagine history into a scenario where the Orioles were not trying to win during the 14 year drought. Those teams tried to win, they were not very good at it.

As for attendance payroll is more important then having a team in contention.

Balderdash.

Having a team in contention is more important than payroll. When did the attendence go up? Once the team started being in contention.

[Can_of_corn]

Balderdash.

Having a team in contention is more important than payroll. When did the attendence go up? Once the team started being in contention.

http://www.thebusinessofsports.com/2011/07/13/is-winning-everything/

When we include all of these factors together to predict annual attendance in MLB, we find that the stadium has the strongest effect, followed by star players, and then the winning percentage in the current season. Last season’s performance also has an influence on this year’s attendance. Statistical analysis shows that the order of the size of the effect on predicting attendance is as follows:

Stadium quality

Star players

Current season’s winning percentage

Last season’s winning percentage

Population-related factors (SMA population, number of MLB and other professional franchises)

Ticket and concession prices

The economy (per capita income)

Star players is defined, in this case, as payroll.

Notice I did not say a consistently contending ball club. I said a team in contention.

Did you really think I would make a statement like that without a study to back it up?

[Nevermore]

http://www.thebusinessofsports.com/2011/07/13/is-winning-everything/

Star players is defined, in this case, as payroll.

Notice I did not say a consistently contending ball club. I said a team in contention.

Did you really think I would make a statement like that without a study to back it up?

Question, then: why did the Orioles' attendance go down during the 14 years of losing? Every source that I've read stated that the Orioles' attendance went down during that period, even though OPACY is one of the best stadiums in MLB. Attendance went down because the O's organization failed to field a contending team. Management brought in some star players: Vlad Guerero, Sammy Sosa, Joe Carter, among others. But these players were brought in at the end of their careers, and fans could see right through this when the results were similar year after year: continuing losing teams that didn't contend. According to your study, the current season's winning percentage is a factor, and it was definitely a factor during the 14 years of losing. Going further: if O's management lets most, if not their star players walk once they reach FA, O's management will not be showing a commitment to winning.

[Can_of_corn]

Question, then: why did the Orioles' attendance go down during the 14 years of losing? Every source that I've read stated that the Orioles' attendance went down during that period, even though OPACY is one of the best stadiums in MLB. Attendance went down because the O's organization failed to field a contending team. Management brought in some star players: Vlad Guerero, Sammy Sosa, Joe Carter, among others. But these players were brought in at the end of their careers, and fans could see right through this when the results were similar year after year: continuing losing teams that didn't contend. According to your study, the current season's winning percentage is a factor, and it was definitely a factor during the 14 years of losing. Going further: if O's management lets most, if not their star players walk once they reach FA, O's management will not be showing a commitment to winning.

Did I say it wasn't a factor at all? I said it wasn't as big a factor.

As to the "stars" the O's brought in, they were stars who light had dimmed with time and that was reflected in what the Orioles paid them (back to payroll).

[Frobby]

As for attendance payroll is more important then having a team in contention.

That makes no sense. Fans want to see a winning team, not highly paid players.

The key is to spend intelligently enough to win. O'Day's a tricky one. I happen to believe that he is very likely to do much better than whoever replaces him, and we will lose more 7th/8th inning leads if he's gone. Even if Givens turns out to be as good as O'Day (which, by the way, is not likely), I might very well prefer to have both and have the ability to shut down the other team for three innings instead of two.

I want to stress, I haven't made up my mind about this, and the market might drive O'Day's price and length of contract further than I'd be willing to go.

[Can_of_corn]

That makes no sense. Fans want to see a winning team, not highly paid players.

The key is to spend intelligently enough to win. O'Day's a tricky one. I happen to believe that he is very likely to do much better than whoever replaces him, and we will lose more 7th/8th inning leads if he's gone. Even if Givens turns out to be as good as O'Day (which, by the way, is not likely), I might very well prefer to have both and have the ability to shut down the other team for three innings instead of two.

I want to stress, I haven't made up my mind about this, and the market might drive O'Day's price and length of contract further than I'd be willing to go.

Take it up with The Business of Sports.

And I think there is a pretty good chance that Givens puts up roughly equivalent numbers over the next three years, since he should be improving as O'Day declines.

[Nevermore]

Question, then: why did the Orioles' attendance go down during the 14 years of losing? Every source that I've read stated that the Orioles' attendance went down during that period, even though OPACY is one of the best stadiums in MLB. Attendance went down because the O's organization failed to field a contending team. Management brought in some star players: Vlad Guerero, Sammy Sosa, Joe Carter, among others. But these players were brought in at the end of their careers, and fans could see right through this when the results were similar year after year: continuing losing teams that didn't contend. According to your study, the current season's winning percentage is a factor, and it was definitely a factor during the 14 years of losing. Going further: if O's management lets most, if not their star players walk once they reach FA, O's management will not be showing a commitment to winning.

Did I say it wasn't a factor at all? I said it wasn't as big a factor.

As to the "stars" the O's brought in, they were stars who light had dimmed with time and that was reflected in what the Orioles paid them (back to payroll).

Exactly what I said about "stars": See bold above.

As for your other points: OPACY didn't become less attractive during the 14 losing years. And it hasn't become more attractive since they started contending again.

As for payroll: there is a reason why star players gain big contracts during their FA years. Because they help the team that signs them contend. It doesn't always mean that the team actually will be good enough to contend; Seattle is an example of that. They signed Cruz to a big contract and they have other high priced players, but they have other problems and are not in a good contending position. It takes some skill in piecing together a contending team. Plus it takes a bit of luck, having the ball bounce your way, so to speak, is a factor in contending. Injuries as well. I would hope that O's management attempts to resign some of their quality FAs and not let all of them walk.

In sum: once the O's started to contend, attendance went way up. One factor leads to another.

[Can_of_corn]

Exactly what I said about "stars": See bold above.

As for your other points: OPACY didn't become less attractive during the 14 losing years. And it hasn't become more attractive since they started contending again.

As for payroll: there is a reason why star players gain big contracts during their FA years. Because they help the team that signs them contend. It doesn't always mean that the team actually will be good enough to contend; Seattle is an example of that. They signed Cruz to a big contract and they have other high priced players, but they have other problems and are not in a good contending position. It takes some skill in piecing together a contending team. Plus it takes a bit of luck, having the ball bounce your way, so to speak, is a factor in contending. Injuries as well. I would hope that O's management attempts to resign some of their quality FAs and not let all of them walk.

In sum: once the O's started to contend, attendance went way up. One factor leads to another.

Of course it did.

The presence of another major league team in the area certainly made OPACY less attractive to what had been part of the fan base. Both for individuals and corporations.

[Nevermore]

That makes no sense. Fans want to see a winning team, not highly paid players.

The key is to spend intelligently enough to win. O'Day's a tricky one. I happen to believe that he is very likely to do much better than whoever replaces him, and we will lose more 7th/8th inning leads if he's gone. Even if Givens turns out to be as good as O'Day (which, by the way, is not likely), I might very well prefer to have both and have the ability to shut down the other team for three innings instead of two.

I want to stress, I haven't made up my mind about this, and the market might drive O'Day's price and length of contract further than I'd be willing to go.

:agree:

But I do believe that O's management needs to make a concerted effort to get O'Day signed. And do it before the end of the season -- yes, Iknow, DD has stated that he won't negotiate during the season. But he has made exceptions: Hardy was signed during the 2014 season. DD needs to make a similar exception and sign O'Day before the market drives his price/length of contract up.

[Nevermore]

Of course it did.

The presence of another major league team in the area certainly made OPACY less attractive to what had been part of the fan base. Both for individuals and corporations.

Just an anecdotal example from my own experience: when the Os were losing every season and I read that the Nats were moving into town with a new park -- I seriously considered going to Nats' games and become a Nats' fan, though I didn't really want to do that, I was simply frustrated. Instead, I went to the park next door, M&T Stadium(which had a different corporate name at the time) and became a rabid Ravens' fan. I've had Ravens' season tickets and a PSL since 2001. But once I noticed that the O's were winning, I started going to O's games and this year, I got a 29-game season plan, which I plan to renew next year.

[Can_of_corn]

Just an anecdotal example from my own experience: when the Os were losing every season and I read that the Nats were moving into town with a new park -- I seriously considered going to Nats' games and become a Nats' fan, though I didn't really want to do that, I was simply frustrated. Instead, I went to the park next door, M&T Stadium(which had a different corporate name at the time) and became a rabid Ravens' fan. I've had Ravens' season tickets and a PSL since 2001. But once I noticed that the O's were winning, I started going to O's games and this year, I got a 29-game season plan, which I plan to renew next year.

Which is great for you.

I don't think you can dispute the presence of another team has made OPACY less attractive overall. Heck PNC park opening in 2001 probably hurt attendance a hair.

[SteveO]

Going into next season this team has a ton of holes. In order for a setup guy to matter one iota you have to have a lead first. The only guys I feel real good about offensively that we have coming back are Machado, Jones and Schoop. I would love to have O'Day back but we have other needs that far outweigh paying 5 million plus a year to O'Day to address first IMO

[Tx Oriole]

That makes no sense. Fans want to see a winning team, not highly paid players.

The key is to spend intelligently enough to win. O'Day's a tricky one. I happen to believe that he is very likely to do much better than whoever replaces him, and we will lose more 7th/8th inning leads if he's gone. Even if Givens turns out to be as good as O'Day (which, by the way, is not likely), I might very well prefer to have both and have the ability to shut down the other team for three innings instead of two.

I want to stress, I haven't made up my mind about this, and the market might drive O'Day's price and length of contract further than I'd be willing to go.

I'd like the O's to resign him but I do understand those that want to let him walk

away. It's a tough situation for sure.