If you owned the Orioles, what decisions would require your approval?

[Moose Milligan]

1 hour ago, Redskins Rick said:

 

Cooke signed off on that acquisition, and the rest is history, for you youngsters see Superbowl XXII and the Williams vs Elway battle.

 

Not really a battle.  More like a slaughter.  HTTR 

1 hour ago, RZNJ said:

I'm not going to play this game. 

Lighten up, buttercup.  Games are fun.

If it were me, I'd hire the best scouts away from the best teams by increasing their salaries 20k.  I'd hire the most forward thinking FO minds I could and a whipsmart young GM.

I'd want to be able to sign off on big FA deals, like 100 million or more and big trades.  The rest would all be up to him.

I'd invest crap ton of money in places like Venezuela and the DR...so much so, that a generation of kids would come along not knowing who the Yankees are but they're all dying to be Orioles.

I'd be largely hands off.  I'd be at most games, interacting with the crowd (you know, assuming we're winning) and making sure fans are happy.

[brooksfrankjim]

Trades.  Free agent signings. International signings above $1 million.  First round draft picks.

[Tx Oriole]

1 hour ago, sportsfan8703 said:

With TV revenues the way they are you really can't blame owners.  Losing a guy like Manny wouldn't just kill us at the ticket office, but would hurt ratings too.  Even in blowouts I'll still flip back to watch Manny and Schoop hit. 

Manny is gone anyway. Trade or FA.  If the FO could get good prospects in a trade maybe it wouldn't hurt so much. I don't know. Just a thought. 

[Tx Oriole]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'd let them explore any avenues they wanted to but I would want approval over any moves on the 40 man roster, players appearing in the top 5 of current prospect lists, anything involving draft picks, or costing more than a million dollars.  I'd also like to be consulted before any changes were made to the ML coaching staff.

I wouldn't. My GM has hired a manager. I would want my manager to get the staff he wants. 

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, Tx Oriole said:

I wouldn't. My GM has hired a manager. I would want my manager to get the staff he wants. 

I wouldn't be planning on stopping them from whatever changes they made but I would like to be made aware of the situation before the change is made.

[Frobby]

6 minutes ago, Tx Oriole said:

I wouldn't. My GM has hired a manager. I would want my manager to get the staff he wants. 

I’d want some say in hiring the manager, but it should be someone proposed by the GM and should report directly to the GM.    I’d want no say whatsoever in hiring/firing coaches.   

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

I’d want some say in hiring the manager, but it should be someone proposed by the GM and should report directly to the GM.    I’d want no say whatsoever in hiring/firing coaches.   

If someone is being let go, or is quitting, I would like to know why.

[atomic]

For a trade like Machado I would want final approval. I would want to know about the players we are getting in return and how they help the club win. I don't think  it is wrong for Angelos to have final approval. I think the problem is Angelos takes forever to make a decision.  And the decision whether to shop him should be there before the Orioles started taking trade offers. 

 

 If the team wants to trade Brach I don' think that should  require owner approval unless we were taking on some huge salary.  

[Frobby]

18 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If someone is being let go, or is quitting, I would like to know why.

I’d like to be informed on lots of things, but not to be involved in decision making except as I outlined.   I’d probably want to meet the GM every 2-4 weeks for an overall update.  

[AnythingO's]

4 hours ago, Frobby said:

I often read opinions that the owner should just hire the GM and let him run the team unfettered, subject maybe to setting an overall budget.    But do any teams really operate quite that way?    If it was your team and your money at risk, would you run it that way?

I would hire the GM, give them a supportable budget ( based on revenue) with some possibility of upside on a case-by-case situation, want some input on the Manager but defer to GM and Manager reports to GM with no back door.

 

[SteveA]

I don't know, but I think there could be a more efficient process.  

Dan could have gone to Buck in October or November and explained the rationale for dealing Manny, with at least a broad outline of what we want to get back (controllable talented guys, more pitching than hitting, etc).   And Angelos could at least have said he is either on board with that approach or not.

At that point, almost any deal that fits that broad outline should be able to be automatically approved with a phone call.

This whole idea of negotiating with a bunch of teams, playing them off each other, is great.   But you should not then have to get a "final product" and take it back to PGA with a real possibility that it could be vetoed.   Can't there be communication during the process?   Team A makes an offer that is the best, and Dan gives Angelos a call and says that here is one deal we have now, would you approve this?   We might be able to get better but here is where we are now.

We're talking one ten minute phone call a day to keep Angelos in the loop.   Not this entire process going on and then when it's all done and we've got an agreement with a team on the best deal, THEN we take it to Angelos who apparently will look at it for the first time and have to approve it.   Which is what seems like is happening.

[eddie83]

5 hours ago, hoosiers said:

Maybe the best thread started here in years and odd that something similar was started long ago.

I can only guess at the reports generated within a front office.  I have to assume that an owner and GM have multiple discussions an offseason regarding the direction of the team, competitiveness of the team and the MLB payroll and other budget items.  As long as we were on the same page with these things and as long as moves were within these parameters, I would still want to approve a majority of transactions - though I would largely be a rubber stamp approver if the moves were within parameters.

I would be an interested and supportive owner, but not heavily involved.  

I think one has to remember that PA thought we had a somewhat competitive team in the early going last year and with the ramp up in payroll was fairly invested into the team.  Now, we are about six or seven months later and the possibility exists for a full re-build and that our front office only began contemplating in earnest dealing the best player in the organization for possibly two decades within the past week to 10 days.  This is a fairly quick and large reversal of fortune and direction - especially with a GM who appears headed out the door at the end of the year - and one with whom a large amount of trust possibly has been lost.  So, I am surprised at the level of disapproval here regarding PA's approval.  I think it is very natural and very likely in the best interests of the team.

Now, that said, PA's chief concern about dealing MM to the NYY is something we can do without.  We actually have made some excellent trades historically with the NYY and recently went to the BoSox for Andrew Miller.  The idea that we shouldn't respond in kind, when some sort of overpay might be expected, is hypocritical.

Any owner should be involved when the franchise player may be dealt. Any owner will be involved in major FA decisions, it’s his money. I have no issue with owner approving the manager either. He should do that. 

The issue here is what we have seen for 25 years. There is dysfunction brought on by the owner. I think what we have seen here is a franchise not on the same page. People have said in the past trade this guy or that guy. This organization does not operate that way. I see no vision from ownership of who exactly we should be. A GM may have a plan in mind that requires several moves to get there. How can a GM operate under this ownership with any plan? I may trade a player here because I believe we have a player over here that can replace him. I make a deal and the owner blocks it. Now I am stuck and don’t know what to do. 

The fact that Angelos has advisors after his GM goes to him is ludicrous. I can only imagine Andrew Freidman or Theo Epstein operating this way. The GM is the one who should be advised, not the owner. Why in the world would anyone want to work under those conditions? 

Basically this man doesn’t trust people. The thing that has always bothered me is the owner of any business sets the direction. Did previous GM’s make moves because they thought that getting to .500 would save their jobs? Did the owner push them to try to make the team more competitive? How can a GM run a team if there is constant interference at every turn. Let’s say Britton was dealt last July, now that has impact elsewhere. 

 

[Aristotelian]

I am a control freak. I would want to approve everything. 

In fact, if I was the owner, I would just make myself GM and try to hire a good assistant GM to keep me from screwing up. 

[Hank Scorpio]

6 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

With TV revenues the way they are you really can't blame owners.  Losing a guy like Manny wouldn't just kill us at the ticket office, but would hurt ratings too.  Even in blowouts I'll still flip back to watch Manny and Schoop hit. 

If they’re not intelligent enough to trade Manny Machado now, I won’t be flipping anywhere near MASN for a long, long time.

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

If they’re not intelligent enough to trade Manny Machado now, I won’t be flipping anywhere near MASN for a long, long time.

I will be watching no matter who’s playing for them, but I’ll be watching less if they’re losing.   Especially if the pitching is remotely like last year’s.