Is this rock bottom?

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Moose Milligan said:

It's 8-10 million that could be better spent elsewhere.  Agree or disagree?

I agree.

Same could be said for O'Day and Britton.

[jjnono]

12 games behind after 23 played... Two losing streaks of 5 or more already... Only Cleveland has a lower team BA in all of baseball... Only Cincinnati and Miami have a lower team OPS... Only Miami has a worse run differential... Only Texas has a worse BAA figure... It may not yet be rock bottom, but that's only because we're sinking in the Marianas Trench....

[glenn__davis]

15 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

It's 8-10 million that could be better spent elsewhere.  Agree or disagree?

Agree.

But also irrelevant IMO.  

[Three Run Homer]

This is the worst the team has looked since the Trembley era, that's for sure.  I remember years during the Dark Ages when Jeff Conine was our best player, and I remember the year when we finished the season 4-32, so this is definitely not rock bottom in terms of O's history that I have experienced.  

I agree that extending Jones and Britton would be blunders.  Keeping Manny all season and letting him walk for a draft pick would also be a blunder.  Signing Manny for 10 years, $300+ million would probably be a blunder given the team's payroll constraints, although I think Manny will be worth $300 million or more over the next ten seasons.  

 

 

[Ohfan67]

The future is not nearly as bleak as some posters think. Granted, things are ugly right now and it's hard to see any reason to be optimistic, but there are reasons. The Orioles have a ton of money coming off the books. Their starting pitching is probably going to be good to even pretty darn good this year and next year. They have interesting position and pitching prospects. It is not all bleak. 

[Moose Milligan]

26 minutes ago, glenn__davis said:

Agree.

But also irrelevant IMO.  

I don't get it, how can 8-10 million that's being wasted on Trumbo not be better spent to...

...spend on Machado

...spend on Schoop

...spend on Bundy...?

...spend on drafting/scouting

can be viewed as irrelevant.  I agree it's not as crippling as the Davis contract is but it's still sunk cost.  Especially as OPACY attendance is going down.  Purse strings are getting tighter, I have to think.  

[glenn__davis]

25 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I don't get it, how can 8-10 million that's being wasted on Trumbo not be better spent to...

...spend on Machado

...spend on Schoop

...spend on Bundy...?

...spend on drafting/scouting

can be viewed as irrelevant.  I agree it's not as crippling as the Davis contract is but it's still sunk cost.  Especially as OPACY attendance is going down.  Purse strings are getting tighter, I have to think.  

I've seen no evidence that the Orioles have any kind of fixed budget.  Various front office personnel have repeatedly stated that funds to sign players has never been a concern.  Obviously there has to be some sort of budget, but the Orioles payroll has shifted around enough in recent years that it seems clear to me that there is no set number they need to operate in.  With all of that said, if you're going to sign Manny or Schoop to a 5 or 6 year extension, I do not believe that having Mark Trumbo under contract for the 1st year of that is any type of deterrent.  The contract will expire quickly and IMO is not a concern.

Regarding drafting/scouting, again there seems to be no evidence that their investment in this is tied to the ML payroll.  The Orioles seem content to spend within the general parameters set forth by MLB.  No more and no less.  Their investment in this area is what it is - taking Trumbo's contract off the books is not going to change it one way or the other.

Again, it was a bad contract and a bad use of resources, I just don't think it's prohibitive moving forward.  Davis is a different story.

[nadecir]

17 minutes ago, glenn__davis said:

I've seen no evidence that the Orioles have any kind of fixed budget.  Various front office personnel have repeatedly stated that funds to sign players has never been a concern.  Obviously there has to be some sort of budget, but the Orioles payroll has shifted around enough in recent years that it seems clear to me that there is no set number they need to operate in.  With all of that said, if you're going to sign Manny or Schoop to a 5 or 6 year extension, I do not believe that having Mark Trumbo under contract for the 1st year of that is any type of deterrent.  The contract will expire quickly and IMO is not a concern.

Regarding drafting/scouting, again there seems to be no evidence that their investment in this is tied to the ML payroll.  The Orioles seem content to spend within the general parameters set forth by MLB.  No more and no less.  Their investment in this area is what it is - taking Trumbo's contract off the books is not going to change it one way or the other.

Again, it was a bad contract and a bad use of resources, I just don't think it's prohibitive moving forward.  Davis is a different story.

There is no question the Orioles have a fixed operating budget.  The Orioles have debt, and they need to service it in order to stay in compliance with MLB debt service rules.

Spending $8 million for Trumbo, $3 million for Tillman. $16 million for Machado, etc. certainly means less money spent elsewhere.   The smart teams are either saving/investing for the future or going all in with a large team payroll to try to win now.    There is a good reason why teams like the Marlins reduce payroll and tank.  They want to get a better draft pick and at the same time save money for the years they think they contend.

Heck, if the Orioles can't figure out anything better to do with their cash then waste it on the payroll on a bad team, they could just use the money to reduce their debt instead.

The Orioles seem to be going all in with a team that has very little chance of competing.  "That's a bold strategy Cotton.  Let's see if it pays off for them."

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, nadecir said:

There is no question the Orioles have a fixed operating budget.  The Orioles have debt, and they need to service it in order to stay in compliance with MLB debt service rules.

Spending $8 million for Trumbo, $3 million for Tillman. $16 million for Machado, etc. certainly means less money spent elsewhere.   The smart teams are either saving/investing for the future or going all in with a large team payroll to try to win now.    There is a good reason why teams like the Marlins reduce payroll and tank.  They want to get a better draft pick and at the same time save money for the years they think they contend.

Heck, if the Orioles can't figure out anything better to do with their cash then waste it on the payroll on a bad team, they could just use the money to reduce their debt instead.

The Orioles seem to be going all in with a team that has very little chance of competing.  "That's a bold strategy Cotton.  Let's see if it pays off for them."

Do they owe a substantial sum to a lender that isn't the primary owner?

[TradeAngelos]

OP lives in a "rock bottom" world it seems, where it has totally consumed him. 

 

[Moose Milligan]

46 minutes ago, glenn__davis said:

I've seen no evidence that the Orioles have any kind of fixed budget.  Various front office personnel have repeatedly stated that funds to sign players has never been a concern.  Obviously there has to be some sort of budget, but the Orioles payroll has shifted around enough in recent years that it seems clear to me that there is no set number they need to operate in.  With all of that said, if you're going to sign Manny or Schoop to a 5 or 6 year extension, I do not believe that having Mark Trumbo under contract for the 1st year of that is any type of deterrent.  The contract will expire quickly and IMO is not a concern.

Regarding drafting/scouting, again there seems to be no evidence that their investment in this is tied to the ML payroll.  The Orioles seem content to spend within the general parameters set forth by MLB.  No more and no less.  Their investment in this area is what it is - taking Trumbo's contract off the books is not going to change it one way or the other.

Again, it was a bad contract and a bad use of resources, I just don't think it's prohibitive moving forward.  Davis is a different story.

You're neglecting dwindling attendance.  Revenue generated at the gate and through concessions has to play a part in a budget.  Attendance was down last year, this year OPACY looks like a ghost town.  

[nadecir]

12 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Do they owe a substantial sum to a lender that isn't the primary owner?

The group that bought the Orioles leveraged the team when they bought it in 1993.  That's a typical thing with the purchase of an asset of this type.  You don't want to tie up all your cash.  In 2011, the Orioles were thought to be in non-compliance with MLB debt service rules.

Quote

Orioles' debt may not mean club has serious economic troubles  (June 2011)
The Orioles have showed up on a list of major league teams with debt beyond what baseball permits. But experts said Friday that the finding doesn't mean the team is financially unsound.

The Orioles were among nine teams in violation of MLB debt service rules, according to information presented in a confidential briefing at the owners' meetings last month and confirmed to the Los Angeles Times by three people familiar with the presentation.

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/orioles/bs-sp-orioles-debt-0604-20110603-story.html

Forbes has the Orioles 2018 debt to value ratio at 15%.

https://www.forbes.com/teams/baltimore-orioles/

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, nadecir said:

The group that bought the Orioles leveraged the team when they bought it in 1993.  That's a typical thing with the purchase of an asset of this type.  You don't want to tie up all your cash.  In 2011, the Orioles were thought to be in non-compliance with MLB debt service rules.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/orioles/bs-sp-orioles-debt-0604-20110603-story.html

Forbes has the Orioles 2018 debt to value ratio at 15%.

https://www.forbes.com/teams/baltimore-orioles/

From what I have heard the owner loaned money to the team and that was the source of the debt.  It is hard for me to get excited by debt when it looks like an accounting trick. 

I see Angelos going, well I'll take 20M in profits from MASN and loan it to the team.

[nadecir]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

From what I have heard the owner loaned money to the team and that was the source of the debt.  It is hard for me to get excited by debt when it looks like an accounting trick. 

I see Angelos going, well I'll take 20M in profits from MASN and loan it to the team.

What is very likely to have happened is that there are multiple sources of Orioles' debt.  Angelos may have covered some operating deficits throughout the years by loaning the team some of his own money.  This would be beyond the revolving credit line the Orioles undoubtedly have.

The other source of debt that MLB is primarily concerned about is what was leveraged initially by the ownership group led by Angelos to purchase the team.  The estimate that Forbes gives means the Orioles have roughly $180 million in debt.

[glenn__davis]

19 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

You're neglecting dwindling attendance.  Revenue generated at the gate and through concessions has to play a part in a budget.  Attendance was down last year, this year OPACY looks like a ghost town.  

I'm not neglecting it, I just don't believe it's going make as big of an impact as you seem to.  And attendance numbers will level out a bit with marquee opponents and better weather.

Do you think that if the Orioles and Manny Machado mutually agreed to an extension through, say, 2025, that the Orioles would say no, that doesn't work for us because we owe Mark Trumbo $10M in 2019?  I do not.