McFarland Released

[Frobby]

11 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

What team did you watch during the early years of the millennium?

2000 - 2nd in payroll

2001 - 7th

2002 - 7th

2003 - 6th

2004 - 9th

2005 - 6th

2006 - 7th

2007 - 7th

2008 - 10th

2009 - 11th

2010 - 8th

2011 - 8th

2012 - 11th

2013 - 7th

2014 - 7th

2015 - 9th

2016 - 6th

To me, Angelos was paying his team well in the '96-'97 years, and continued to expect them to be competitive in 1998-2000, finally coming to grips with reality at the trade deadline in 2000.    He's begun to tick back up the last few years, though to be honest, the upward trend isn't that pronounced when you look at it according to team ranking in payroll, rather than just dollars spent.   The whole salary market has increased dramatically the last several years.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

2000 - 2nd in payroll

2001 - 7th

2002 - 7th

2003 - 6th

2004 - 9th

2005 - 6th

2006 - 7th

2007 - 7th

2008 - 10th

2009 - 11th

2010 - 8th

2011 - 8th

2012 - 11th

2013 - 7th

2014 - 7th

2015 - 9th

2016 - 6th

To me, Angelos was paying his team well in the '96-'97 years, and continued to expect them to be competitive in 1998-2000, finally coming to grips with reality at the trade deadline in 2000.    He's begun to tick back up the last few years, though to be honest, the upward trend isn't that pronounced when you look at it according to team ranking in payroll, rather than just dollars spent.   The whole salary market has increased dramatically the last several years.

And he was paying to try and reach mediocrity.  How many vets on the downside of their careers did the O's sign?  You sign Kevin Millar in 2006 because you don't want to finish last. 

Payroll was never bare bones low, there was always some folks on the payroll that a team that going into total slash mode wouldn't keep.  I think it is telling that despite all those losing seasons the O's haven't been last since 1988.  They were never terrible, just uninteresting bad.

 

[Frobby]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

And he was paying to try and reach mediocrity.  How many vets on the downside of their careers did the O's sign?  You sign Kevin Millar in 2006 because you don't want to finish last. 

Payroll was never bare bones low, there was always some folks on the payroll that a team that going into total slash mode wouldn't keep.  I think it is telling that despite all those losing seasons the O's haven't been last since 1988.  They were never terrible, just uninteresting bad.

 

I guess we have differing definitions of terrible.   When your team fails to win 70 games, that's pretty terrible in my opinion.    But you're correct that there were always a few teams that were worse.   

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I guess we have differing definitions of terrible.   When your team fails to win 70 games, that's pretty terrible in my opinion.    But you're correct that there were always a few teams that were worse.   

Will you agree that they made moves that only made sense if the team was striving to reach mediocrity?  Would you agree that payroll could have easily been lower for many of these teams?

They never intentionally tanked a season.

Now that can be viewed as an honorable thing, but in my book it is also paying for mediocrity.

[Frobby]

25 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Will you agree that they made moves that only made sense if the team was striving to reach mediocrity?  Would you agree that payroll could have easily been lower for many of these teams?

They never intentionally tanked a season.

Now that can be viewed as an honorable thing, but in my book it is also paying for mediocrity.

I can't give a simple answer to the question, since the answer varied a bit from year to year.    I think from 2001-03 Angelos pretty much was resigned to the team being terrible.   2004-05 was a period where the O's were trying to compete (signing Tejada, Lopez, Palmeiro, Ponson and making the ill-fated trade for Sosa).   In 2006-07 I'd say it was a mixed bag.    In 2008-10 I think they were pretty much trying to rebuild and get younger.    I think they sort of tried to compete in 2011 but failed, and since then, they've been competitive.

It wasn't fun thinking about all the twists and turns from 1998-2011.    I need a drink!

[weams]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think the team spends all the money it has to spend.  Kinda like your old buddy that made decent money but was still always broke by the Monday after payday.

I've been that buddy. 

[weams]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I guess we have differing definitions of terrible.   When your team fails to win 70 games, that's pretty terrible in my opinion.    But you're correct that there were always a few teams that were worse.   

I am far too old to support trying to rebuild at a 70 win level ever again. 

[Redskins Rick]

On 2/27/2017 at 9:04 AM, Frobby said:

I assume we're limiting ourselves to trades of Orioles minor league players for major league players.   I think you could argue that the following players helped us make the playoffs, or made the playoff-bound 2014 Orioles a better team:

• Jim Thome
• Bud Norris
• Brad Brach
• Andrew Miller
• Michael Bourn
• Steve Pearce (2016 trade for Jonah Heim)

The Brach deal is one where we got a long-term contributor and the minor leaguer we gave up ended up having no value.     The Miller deal was one where we got a high-impact short-term player but gave up a valuable long-term asset in exchange (though I didn't favor this trade).   Norris made a good contribution to the team in one of the three years he was here, and was an important part of the 2014 rotation; we're still waiting to find out if Josh Hader or the player selected with the comp pick we gave up will have any impact in the majors.    Thome, Bourn and Pearce all made modest contributions for a short period and it remains to be seen if any of the players we gave up in those deals ever become major leaguers and have any impact.

 

There was 2 big reasons for the Miller trade, not just to add a solid arm to the Oriole pen.

IMO, it was more important to keep a solid arm out of a very bad Tiger pen, that probably would have got them much farther in the playoffs.

So while it was costly in giving up E-Rod, the team had a very good shot at making the WS, and I thought it was the right move. They did get to the ALDS, without Manny and Davis, who knows, if they both had still been on the roster, what might have happened.

 

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, weams said:

I am far too old to support trying to rebuild at a 70 win level ever again. 

There may come a time when rebuilding is the only realistic choice.    That was the case back in 2000.    They just did a lousy job of it.

[weams]

31 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I can't give a simple answer to the question, since the answer varied a bit from year to year.    I think from 2001-03 Angelos pretty much was resigned to the team being terrible.   2004-05 was a period where the O's were trying to compete (signing Tejada, Lopez, Palmeiro, Ponson and making the ill-fated trade for Sosa).   In 2006-07 I'd say it was a mixed bag.    In 2008-10 I think they were pretty much trying to rebuild and get younger.    I think they sort of tried to compete in 2011 but failed, and since then, they've been competitive.

It wasn't fun thinking about all the twists and turns from 1998-2011.    I need a drink!

Andy MacPhail knew that he could not win in Baltimore. He did his best to repair the infrastructure. I think he knew that the team would never turn a profit as a stand alone entity without massive corporate changes. I believe Andy was a good evlaulator of talents. Kevin Millar joked about the way the teams he played for in Baltimore were. He made an aside about Dave Trembley and Andy. It's obvious that he thinks that Buck's Sgt Slaughter deal is a better way to win at the MLB level. Kevin - of course - has been known to be a fool. And he was a scab. So no pension I assume. 

[weams]

5 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

They did get to the ALDS, without Manny and Davis, who knows, if they both had still been on the roster, what might have happened.

 

Matt Wieters too. 

[weams]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

 

Seems to me that Angelos is willing to spend to keep a competitive team competitive.     When they're not competitive, he doesn't like spending money to try to move from bad to mediocre.   Frankly, it makes a lot of sense to me.    But I don't see the team as "poor" from a financial standpoint.    

I never said the Angelos family was poor. I think that compared to other markets, Baltimore supports a team poorly. 

[weams]

Back to McFarland in this thread. 

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, weams said:

Kevin Millar joked about the way the teams he played for in Baltimore were. He made an aside about Dave Trembley and Andy. It's obvious that he thinks that Buck's Sgt Slaughter deal is a better way to win at the MLB level. Kevin - of course - has been known to be a fool. And he was a scab. So no pension I assume. 

Millar and Conine were signed in the 2005-06 offseason to try to stabilize a clubhouse that had been torn apart by the Raffy scandal.   They were both known as good clubhouse presences, but nobody believed they were going to make the team competitive.    I have no hard feelings towards Millar, he did what he was expected to do, but I'm glad that era is behind us.

[weams]

Just now, Frobby said:

Millar and Conine were signed in the 2005-06 offseason to try to stabilize a clubhouse that had been torn apart by the Raffy scandal.   They were both known as good clubhouse presences, but nobody believed they were going to make the team competitive.    I have no hard feelings towards Millar, he did what he was expected to do, but I'm glad that era is behind us.

Me too. Thanks for that. Kevin could get on base.