Jump to content

Finite Resources

weams

By weams
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

clapdiddy Hangout Grand Counsel

clapdiddy

Posted
Posted

I think it's a bit of a mixed bag at this point.   I don't think, in the long run, it's smart for the Orioles to carry the payroll they have now.   I think they can have a very good team in the 120 - 140 M range if they do four things.

1. Get better at development and scouting - especially in pitching.

2. Lock up younger talent sooner.

3. Optimize the return they get on their own players before they reach free agency if they are unable to do #2.

4. Spend some money internationally.  Not that they need to be in on ALL top international talent, but they should occasionally make a splash there.

Seems easy enough to me, but I just don't think we need to have a 165M (or higher) payroll to win.  The Yankees and Red Sox are ALWAYS going to be able to outspend us.   We need to be smarter about how we go about building a winner.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Can_of_corn Hangout Grand Counsel

Can_of_corn

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, clapdiddy said:

I think it's a bit of a mixed bag at this point.   I don't think, in the long run, it's smart for the Orioles to carry the payroll they have now.   I think they can have a very good team in the 120 - 140 M range if they do four things.

1. Get better at development and scouting - especially in pitching.

2. Lock up younger talent sooner.

3. Optimize the return they get on their own players before they reach free agency if they are unable to do #2.

4. Spend some money internationally.  Not that they need to be in on ALL top international talent, but they should occasionally make a splash there.

Seems easy enough to me, but I just don't think we need to have a 165M (or higher) payroll to win.  The Yankees and Red Sox are ALWAYS going to be able to outspend us.   We need to be smarter about how we go about building a winner.

 

You left off

5.  Don't tie up money in long term contracts for older players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frobby Hangout Grand Counsel

Frobby

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

MLBAM sell off.

86 million per team not subject to revenue sharing.

Not all in one year, right?    I think this year’s slug is $50 mm.   They got $36 mm previously.

It’s a double-edged sword, though. That money is only coming once, and it’s substituting for a dividend stream that would have come in from MLBAM year after year.    That source of revenue is gone in the future.    Presumably MLB felt the one-time payment had more economic value than the future revenue stream, probably because Disney will do a better job marketing the technology than MLB could have done on its own.   

As to “limited resources,” the percentage of MLB gross revenues devoted to payroll has been going down over time, even while average payroll has been going up.    I don’t think tight profit margins are an issue in MLB generally.    At any given time, a particular team might be extended about to its limit, though.   The O’s might be there, considering the big payroll jump they made in 2016 and sustained in 2017.    Per BB-ref:

2012: $78 mm (22nd in MLB)

2013: $101 mm (13th)

2014: $109 mm (13th)

2015: $113 mm (15th)

2016: $154 mm (10th)

2017: $162 mm (11th)

It’s plausible to me that the O’s have been “punching above their weight” the last two years trying to stay competitive, and eventually will have to slip back down the list.    Unlike some people, I don’t find it surprising that teams move up and down on this list to a degree, because willingness to spend can depend upon where a team is in its competitive cycle.    

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Can_of_corn Hangout Grand Counsel

Can_of_corn

Posted
Posted

They have sold off shares in three increments.  It has been tightly grouped, all of the transactions have happened in the last few years.  Keep in mind that is almost all profit as the initial outlay was very small.

No idea how much more the product is worth under the control of Disney than it would have been under MLB's control.  It is possible that the future revenue streams are not that far off since MLB will be getting a share of Disney streaming revenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
maybenxtyr Hangout Veteran Council

maybenxtyr

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, clapdiddy said:

I think it's a bit of a mixed bag at this point.   I don't think, in the long run, it's smart for the Orioles to carry the payroll they have now.   I think they can have a very good team in the 120 - 140 M range if they do four things.

1. Get better at development and scouting - especially in pitching.

2. Lock up younger talent sooner.

3. Optimize the return they get on their own players before they reach free agency if they are unable to do #2.

4. Spend some money internationally.  Not that they need to be in on ALL top international talent, but they should occasionally make a splash there.

Seems easy enough to me, but I just don't think we need to have a 165M (or higher) payroll to win.  The Yankees and Red Sox are ALWAYS going to be able to outspend us.   We need to be smarter about how we go about building a winner.

 

This is a process they should start sooner rather than later though. What they are doing right now really does not make sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frobby Hangout Grand Counsel

Frobby

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

They have sold off shares in three increments.  It has been tightly grouped, all of the transactions have happened in the last few years.  Keep in mind that is almost all profit as the initial outlay was very small.

No idea how much more the product is worth under the control of Disney than it would have been under MLB's control.  It is possible that the future revenue streams are not that far off since MLB will be getting a share of Disney streaming revenue.

I did not know that.    Are they getting it other than through the 15% (or is it 10%?) of MLBAM that they still own?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


  • Posts

    • sportsfan8703
      Os vs KC in WC round

      By sportsfan8703 · Posted

      We played all our Saturday games at home at 4pm. That should help us.  I don’t know if that was the full reason we made the switch this year, but it had to factor in. We didn’t do so well in the day games last year in the playoffs.  Also, don’t be surprised to see McCann get a big hit in game 1 and possibly just start this entire series versus the speedster Royals.  Let’s go. We owe these “guys” big time paybacks even if it’s 10 years later. 
    • Jagwar
      Os vs KC in WC round

      By Jagwar · Posted

      They also smacked him around for 7 ER on 9 H in 1.2 innings. He can be beaten, though he certainly had a great September.  
    • Jagwar
      Looks like the Detroit Tigers (Update: O's play KC in 1st round of playoffs)

      By Jagwar · Posted

      I understand why posters would want to avoid Skubal in a game 1, but the Royals starters are not going to be a cakewalk. Probably a deeper starting staff with Ragans, Lugo and Wacha.
    • Roll Tide
      Orioles made it through rough terrain…by Roch

      By Roll Tide · Posted

      Interesting article …. Pretty surprising stat with all the guys that we lost to injury       https://www.masnsports.com/blog/orioles-made-it-through-rough-t
    • Brian88
      2024 Week 4: Ravens vs Bills on SNF

      By Brian88 · Posted

      The same thing was happening was MacDonald was the DC and when Wink was the DC, that makes me put most of the blame on Harbaugh 
    • Hallas
      Can Cowser still win Rookie of The Year over Gil/Wells ?

      By Hallas · Posted

      dWAR is just the run value for defense added with the defensive adjustment.  Corner OF spots have a -7.5 run adjustment, while CF has a +2.5 adjustment over 150 games.    Since Cowser played both CF and the corners they pro-rate his time at each to calculate his defensive adjustment. 
    • e16bball
      Can Cowser still win Rookie of The Year over Gil/Wells ?

      By e16bball · Posted

      Just to be clear, though, fWAR also includes a substantial adjustment for position, including a negative one for Cowser.  For a clearer example on that front, as the chart posted higher on this page indicates, Carlos Santana had a +14 OAA — which is the source data that fWAR’s defensive component is based on. That 14 outs above average equates to 11-12 (they use different values on this for some reason) runs better than the average 1B.  So does Santana have a 12.0 defensive value, per fWAR? He does not. That’s because they adjust his defensive value downward to reflect that he’s playing a less difficult/valuable position. In this case, that adjustment comes out to -11.0 runs, as you can see here:   So despite apparently having a bona fide Gold Glove season, Santana’s Fielding Runs value (FanGraphs’ equivalent to dWAR) is barely above average, at 1.1 runs.    Any good WAR calculation is going to adjust for position. Being a good 1B just isn’t worth as much as being an average SS or catcher. Just as being a good LF isn’t worth as much as being an average CF. Every outfielder can play LF — only the best outfielders can play CF.  Where the nuance/context shows up here is with Cowser’s unique situation. Playing LF in OPACY, with all that ground to cover, is not the same as playing LF at Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Treating Cowser’s “position” as equivalent to Tyler O’Neill’s, for example, is not fair. The degree of difficulty is much, much higher at OPACY’s LF, and so the adjustment seems out of whack for him. That’s the one place where I’d say the bWAR value is “unfair” to Cowser.

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...