How good can the 2019 Orioles be?

[Moose Milligan]

18 hours ago, jtschrei said:

I'm all about the tank... and so are other teams... and MLB knows it.

And the players' association knows it too. 

It's problematic for the league that tanking is so fruitful. The NFL and NBA have the issue too.

American sports are so weird in that there is no real punishment for being atrocious. In Europe, in soccer, you straight up get demoted to the minor leagues if you are in the bottom 3. It's way more entrepreneurial for owners. Here the fat cats have a monopoly. Not only is there no punishment, you are rewarded for atrociousness. 

I don't think the O's will actively tank, but I think any veteran with value will be traded. 

 

 

I don't necessarily think it's tanking all the time.  I don't think these franchises are always trying to lose games.  

What I do think is coming to the surface now is a better understanding of how to build teams.  And when you look at a team like the Orioles right now, there's no need to spend on FAs unless it's a bargain bin guy like Nate Karns.  The side effect of that is the wrong message that it sends to a certain part of the fan base, that "we're not trying" because we didn't go spend 15 million on a pitcher this year, or enter the Bryce/Manny sweepstakes.  

I don't think anyone here, save one poster, believes that this team is NOT trying to build a winner despite the lack of free agency moves.  But the casual O's fan who's wondering why Adam Jones isn't in spring training doesn't understand the approach that Elias is bringing to the table.  Fans like that associate spending money with trying to build a winner.  If they can see it, they believe it.  They don't see money being spent on analytics, scouting, drafting and developing, therefore they don't understand it.

And since ESPN and mainstream sports media sites don't really dig deep and try to explain this to people, it's easier to write it off as "tanking."  It's not tanking, it's trying to build a core of good, young, cost controlled talent for a significant amount of time.  But with the casual fan, it's viewed as tanking because they don't understand or want to admit that they'll have to wait 3-4 years to see their team win some games.  

Is it problematic?  Maybe.  But there's always going to be teams that are miserably bad.  There's always going to be a 3-13 team in the NFL just like there's always going to be a 13-3 team.  If in a division like the 2018 AL east, if you have two teams at 100 wins and another team at 90, you better believe there's a team or two out there that is absolute dog $#*!.  That's just how it goes.

 

 

[DrungoHazewood]

14 minutes ago, Roy Firestone said:

I don't see the Orioles winning 50 games.

I take that to mean they're going to win 77.

[Moose Milligan]

Just now, DrungoHazewood said:

I take that to mean they're going to win 77.

Is it Opposite Day in the DrungoHazewood house?

[DrungoHazewood]

11 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I don't necessarily think it's tanking all the time.  I don't think these franchises are always trying to lose games.  

They're not throwing games.  They're just purposely fielding non-competitive teams because there are few downsides to putting resources into development and profits instead of wins 60-80.  Having few consequences and some benefits to losing is certainly a far more comfortable place for an owner than real consequences.  But it's not so good for fans, or even players.  In promotion/relegation leagues 15th-place teams will fight like crazy and spend money to stay out of the relegation zone.  The equivalent of 15th-place teams in MLB are playing out the string and positioning themselves for 2020 or 2021 from about mid-May on, and the outcome of the games just don't matter.  In some ways the game Bowie plays on July 15th in a league that truly doesn't care about who wins will be more consequential than the O's game on the same day.

But it's not changing, so let's make the best of our relatively meaningless 63-win season.

[DrungoHazewood]

19 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Is it Opposite Day in the DrungoHazewood house?

Have you forgotten the Firestone Rule?  Whenever he says the Orioles are doomed (most of the time, be it 2010 or 2012 or 2014 or 2017) inevitably they win.

[Moose Milligan]

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Have you forgotten the Firestone Rule?  Whenever he says the Orioles are doomed (most of the time, be it 2010 or 2012 or 2014 or 2017) inevitably they win.

I have indeed forgotten.  So we'll see if we can get some 1989 magic with this group.

[Frobby]

22 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Have you forgotten the Firestone Rule?  Whenever he says the Orioles are doomed (most of the time, be it 2010 or 2012 or 2014 or 2017) inevitably they win.

Didn’t work so well last year.   

[DrungoHazewood]

19 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Didn’t work so well last year.   

I assumed Roy predicted roughly 4-100 after May.

[foxfield]

24 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I assumed Roy predicted roughly 4-100 after May.

Close....he said they may never win again.

[jtschrei]

2 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

I don't necessarily think it's tanking all the time.  I don't think these franchises are always trying to lose games.  

What I do think is coming to the surface now is a better understanding of how to build teams.  And when you look at a team like the Orioles right now, there's no need to spend on FAs unless it's a bargain bin guy like Nate Karns.  The side effect of that is the wrong message that it sends to a certain part of the fan base, that "we're not trying" because we didn't go spend 15 million on a pitcher this year, or enter the Bryce/Manny sweepstakes.  

I don't think anyone here, save one poster, believes that this team is NOT trying to build a winner despite the lack of free agency moves.  But the casual O's fan who's wondering why Adam Jones isn't in spring training doesn't understand the approach that Elias is bringing to the table.  Fans like that associate spending money with trying to build a winner.  If they can see it, they believe it.  They don't see money being spent on analytics, scouting, drafting and developing, therefore they don't understand it.

And since ESPN and mainstream sports media sites don't really dig deep and try to explain this to people, it's easier to write it off as "tanking."  It's not tanking, it's trying to build a core of good, young, cost controlled talent for a significant amount of time.  But with the casual fan, it's viewed as tanking because they don't understand or want to admit that they'll have to wait 3-4 years to see their team win some games.  

Is it problematic?  Maybe.  But there's always going to be teams that are miserably bad.  There's always going to be a 3-13 team in the NFL just like there's always going to be a 13-3 team.  If in a division like the 2018 AL east, if you have two teams at 100 wins and another team at 90, you better believe there's a team or two out there that is absolute dog $#*!.  That's just how it goes.

 

 

Great post. I agree with almost all of it. Definitely you're right -- the O's are trying to build a winning organization and that takes reapportioning money to spend on player development, international player acquisition, and scouting instead of big name free agents.

It's not tanking; it's reapportioning resources. The union doesn't like it... although I'm not sure why. The money is still getting spent. It's just not getting all spent on a few super expensive FAs. Instead, it's going to a bunch of 17, 18, 19 year old prospects, scouts, and analytics departments. 

[Frobby]

8 minutes ago, jtschrei said:

It's not tanking; it's reapportioning resources. The union doesn't like it... although I'm not sure why. The money is still getting spent. It's just not getting all spent on a few super expensive FAs. Instead, it's going to a bunch of 17, 18, 19 year old prospects, scouts, and analytics departments. 

I think you just answered your own question.   

[jtschrei]

39 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think you just answered your own question.   

Right. I'm criticizing the union.

Everyone should benefit from the union, not just the high earners.  

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, jtschrei said:

Great post. I agree with almost all of it. Definitely you're right -- the O's are trying to build a winning organization and that takes reapportioning money to spend on player development, international player acquisition, and scouting instead of big name free agents.

It's not tanking; it's reapportioning resources. The union doesn't like it... although I'm not sure why. The money is still getting spent. It's just not getting all spent on a few super expensive FAs. Instead, it's going to a bunch of 17, 18, 19 year old prospects, scouts, and analytics departments. 

Not a single one of those people is a member of the union.  And I'm sure the combined salaries of all the O's scouts and their analytics department and 400 of their minor leaguers is less than Chris Davis.

[LookinUp]

1 hour ago, jtschrei said:

The union doesn't like it... although I'm not sure why. The money is still getting spent. It's just not getting all spent on a few super expensive FAs. Instead, it's going to a bunch of 17, 18, 19 year old prospects, scouts, and analytics departments. 

I highly doubt the money is getting spent. Some is, for sure, but we're not pouring the extra $50 million we're not spending on this season's payroll into minor league statistical analyses and international bonuses. 

[Ruzious]

On 2/14/2019 at 11:24 AM, jjnono said:

I think this team will be hard pressed NOT to lose 100 games or more.  I'm not expecting any sort of meaningful improvement in the Win/Loss columns.  That said, I would like to see improvement over the course of the season, especially from players that figure to be part of the next 3-5 years of the team's future.  I'd be willing to split the season into thirds and see how we progress... or don't.  Ultimately I would just like to see us establish some positive talent progression, regardless of where we wind up in the standings.  If at the end of the next 2-3 seasons we can be increasingly excited for the next season, I'm good....

Well said - particularly because I agree with everything you said.