Is the 2019 Season a Blatant Tank Job?

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

That's not mob mentality, that's blind homerism.

And anybody who has spent any significant amount of time on these boards over the last 2 years knows that many, many posters haven't hesitated to (very harshly) criticize the players, and/or the manager's decisions, and/or the front office's moves.

 

Your obsession/fantasy that the entire board are a bunch of blind homers is just that ........ a fantasy created on your part, to paint yourself as a martyr and the only one here that is courageous enough to criticize the organization.

 

o

I would think that anyone suggesting this board has an unrelenting positive view on the O's and that folks that deviate from that view are somehow excluded are ignoring my existence.

[atomic]

11 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I would think that anyone suggesting this board has an unrelenting positive view on the O's and that folks that deviate from that view are somehow excluded are ignoring my existence.

You are consistently negative in your opinions. You wanted to rebuild after the 2012 season.

[atomic]

50 minutes ago, Uli2001 said:

This kind of aberration is due to the absence of relegation in American sports. Teams have no incentive not to stink egregiously except for losing money at the box office, but even that is smoothed out by revenue sharing. It's the most anti-free-market system imaginable, in the Land of the Free. And it's getting worse. You are going to see MLB teams lose 130 games soon.

It would be nice if we could kick out the Orioles and move in the Rays.  I think with a bigger revenue stream they could be a great franchise.

[eddie83]

1 hour ago, Uli2001 said:

This kind of aberration is due to the absence of relegation in American sports. Teams have no incentive not to stink egregiously except for losing money at the box office, but even that is smoothed out by revenue sharing. It's the most anti-free-market system imaginable, in the Land of the Free. And it's getting worse. You are going to see MLB teams lose 130 games soon.

Look at the WAR leaderboards, especially for position players. Only a few players under the age of 30. It is a young man’s game. If you lack young talent you are basically done. It makes no sense for teams even if they desired to spend in the FA market like it was during the PED era.

The Twins took advantage of the market this year but if you look, the young talent on their team has played very well this year. 

The majority of best players in the sport are on their first contract or their first team. The only way to acquire those players is the draft, International or by trade.  

What are real options for the Orioles and Royals right now? They both pushed their competitive window as far as they can and now are dealing with the consequences. 

[TheOtherRipken]

13 hours ago, atomic said:

I defended DD.   I really dont want to get into another argument with you as you don’t even discuss things.   Why don’t you go back to posting players middle names with alternating colors. 

Actually I think a lot of posters on these boards appreciate OFFNYs contributions to the boards. Know that was somehow intended as a slight, but think it missed the mark. 

[DrungoHazewood]

13 hours ago, Uli2001 said:

This kind of aberration is due to the absence of relegation in American sports. Teams have no incentive not to stink egregiously except for losing money at the box office, but even that is smoothed out by revenue sharing. It's the most anti-free-market system imaginable, in the Land of the Free. And it's getting worse. You are going to see MLB teams lose 130 games soon.

It is ironic or at least an odd juxtaposition that Europe is traditionally or stereotypically egalitarian with deep safety nets, while the US typically favors cutthroat competition and survival of the fittest.  Again, not to get political, and talking in broad generalities that's the story that's told, and it has some truth.

But in sports any rich guy can buy any English Premier League team if he has enough cash, and he can then spend more than 100% of revenues on payroll.  Free agency is universal, you can buy anyone out of their contract at any time.  You finish last or near last and you're sent away to the minors, revenue tanks, shame and fan revolts happen.  Every town or city has a team or six, all competing with each other.  You want a new stadium, you usually pay for it out of pocket.  In short, there are real consequences for managing or performing badly.

In US sports you're guaranteed a spot in the top league more-or-less forever no matter your performance, you can only spend so much, if you perform badly you get the best picks in the draft, free agency is restricted, players have no say in where they play for years and years, salaries are often capped, revenues shared.  Owners are thoroughly vetted by current owners.  Stadiums are almost universally paid for by taxes, mostly from people who don't care about sports.  Teams like Pittsburgh or the O's or KC can finish with losing records for years and years and years with few consequences besides popularity.

It's strange.

[mdoriolefan]

6 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It is ironic or at least an odd juxtaposition that Europe is traditionally or stereotypically egalitarian with deep safety nets, while the US typically favors cutthroat competition and survival of the fittest.  Again, not to get political, and talking in broad generalities that's the story that's told, and it has some truth.

But in sports any rich guy can buy any English Premier League team if he has enough cash, and he can then spend more than 100% of revenues on payroll.  Free agency is universal, you can buy anyone out of their contract at any time.  You finish last or near last and you're sent away to the minors, revenue tanks, shame and fan revolts happen.  Every town or city has a team or six, all competing with each other.  You want a new stadium, you usually pay for it out of pocket.  In short, there are real consequences for managing or performing badly.

In US sports you're guaranteed a spot in the top league more-or-less forever no matter your performance, you can only spend so much, if you perform badly you get the best picks in the draft, free agency is restricted, players have no say in where they play for years and years, salaries are often capped, revenues shared.  Owners are thoroughly vetted by current owners.  Stadiums are almost universally paid for by taxes, mostly from people who don't care about sports.  Teams like Pittsburgh or the O's or KC can finish with losing records for years and years and years with few consequences besides popularity.

It's strange.

I just happened upon this article from beyondtheboxscore  and it implies that a Federal League team in Baltimore, not the Orioles,  may have had a hand in MLB still being exempt from anti-trust laws.

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2008/12/3/678134/the-history-of-baseball-s

[DrungoHazewood]

33 minutes ago, mdoriolefan said:

I just happened upon this article from beyondtheboxscore  and it implies that a Federal League team in Baltimore, not the Orioles,  may have had a hand in MLB still being exempt from anti-trust laws.

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2008/12/3/678134/the-history-of-baseball-s

Yes, that's absolutely true.  The Terrapins were the one Federal League team that refused to go quietly when the league folded.  The lawsuit that followed made it to the Supreme Court, and the (I'll let @Frobby chime in here) result was bizarre, at least to a layman.  Other sports exist just fine without an anti-trust exemption, but it might have helped if the case had gone differently.

The other major consequence of the Federal League Terrapins was that Jack Dunn's minor league Orioles couldn't compete with a supposedly major league team literally across the street.  So he sold Babe Ruth, and temporarily moved the Orioles to Richmond.  If not for the Feds Ruth might have been like Lefty Grove: a dominant minor league Oriole for 5+ years.

[atomic]

1 hour ago, TheOtherRipken said:

Actually I think a lot of posters on these boards appreciate OFFNYs contributions to the boards. Know that was somehow intended as a slight, but think it missed the mark. 

It was a bulls eye.  

[atomic]

45 minutes ago, mdoriolefan said:

I just happened upon this article from beyondtheboxscore  and it implies that a Federal League team in Baltimore, not the Orioles,  may have had a hand in MLB still being exempt from anti-trust laws.

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2008/12/3/678134/the-history-of-baseball-s

Funny I never knew about the federal league until yesterday when I was reading about the one team as bad as the Orioles the 1915 and 1916 Phillies.  Seems they sold their best two players and lost other players to the federal league as the owner didn’t want to pay the players.  Then I saw one was on the Baltimore Terrapins which I didn’t know existed,

[25 Nuggets]

To answer the OP - It's about as blatant as you can get to me.

Not that the team is losing on purpose (though some nights the bullpen makes you think) - it's just that the organizational focus is elsewhere.  Passively tanking.  Which is what happens when teams tank.  There is no point in using resources to win now.

[OFFNY]

9 hours ago, TheOtherRipken said:

 

Actually, I think a lot of posters on these boards appreciate OFFNY's contributions to the boards. Know that was somehow intended as a slight, but think it missed the mark. 

 

o

 

Thank you. Much appreciated.

 

o

[drjohnnyfeva]

So it depends on the sphere you're talking about when the OP is asking if this is a tank job? 

For me, I don't think the players are "tanking" or not doing their best.  There's no incentive there for them in doing that.  I just think they aren't that good.  All you have to do is look at the mental errors that have occurred to prove that.  They just aren't very good...  I say that with much deference because I, nor none of us, could measure up to what these guys do.  So I don't feel they are tanking it, per se.

Was it an organizational decision to be poor?  Or be "not that good?"  Someone used the term, passively aggressive in not gathering talent.  That made me laugh and it might be the best characterization of what we are experiencing.  They made the Elias decision somewhat late.  Maybe by design, maybe not.  Personally, I think they mailed it in in the off-season and this is the result.  And with some players that were acquired from bad trades and salary dumps, no less, not knowing what they really got. 

Certainly, there aren't going to be any flashy moves to make us better right now to impress fans or anything.  It's a chalk it up to we're just not a good team right now seasonand we're going to take a look at the players we have now.  In that respect, ownership sort of agreed that we'd tank it this year.

I like what Elias is doing with cycling thru the players that have been here, like Wright and Ricard, to see what they really have to offer at the MLB level.  So far it has been a poor showing, but that's what being in a rebuild process means.  I'm encouraged that he is not afraid to say goodbye.  I trust what he's going to find are better suited to help us in the future.

[waroriole]

Tank for Tork

[Uli2001]

14 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It is ironic or at least an odd juxtaposition that Europe is traditionally or stereotypically egalitarian with deep safety nets, while the US typically favors cutthroat competition and survival of the fittest.  Again, not to get political, and talking in broad generalities that's the story that's told, and it has some truth.

But in sports any rich guy can buy any English Premier League team if he has enough cash, and he can then spend more than 100% of revenues on payroll.  Free agency is universal, you can buy anyone out of their contract at any time.  You finish last or near last and you're sent away to the minors, revenue tanks, shame and fan revolts happen.  Every town or city has a team or six, all competing with each other.  You want a new stadium, you usually pay for it out of pocket.  In short, there are real consequences for managing or performing badly.

In US sports you're guaranteed a spot in the top league more-or-less forever no matter your performance, you can only spend so much, if you perform badly you get the best picks in the draft, free agency is restricted, players have no say in where they play for years and years, salaries are often capped, revenues shared.  Owners are thoroughly vetted by current owners.  Stadiums are almost universally paid for by taxes, mostly from people who don't care about sports.  Teams like Pittsburgh or the O's or KC can finish with losing records for years and years and years with few consequences besides popularity.

It's strange.

Thanks, that's my point exactly. You forgot to mention that a team can start in the 4th division and rise to the 1st if they are well-managed and have (or acquire) enough fan support. The quintessential American rags-to-riches story.

The problem with American sports leagues is corporate socialism. The owners protect each other and the government protects them all by giving them anti-trust exemptions. You can make a lot of money in socialism, at least the corporate kind. Do not kid yourself, many industries in the US operate exactly like this. In the US capitalism is for the little guy only, for the rich mostly it is corporate socialism.