"The Orioles don't belong on the field with the Yankees" Lose 8-3

[TonySoprano]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Hey, I was born in '71 and was in high school before they had a losing record.  They drew me in, got me to expect 90+ wins a year, locked me in for life... just in time for 75% of the seasons to be under .500 since.

My son didn't see a winning record until he was in 7th grade.

[Dale]

How about implementing a 3-3-3 rule:

The top 3 draft choices shall be given out to the teams with the 3 highest winning percentages in the previous year of teams that have not made the playoffs for 3 years and have not had a top 3 draft choice in the last 3 years.  The next group of draft choices will be based on winning percentage from teams that did not make the playoffs in the past year.  The next group of teams will be play-in losers sorted by winning percentage, ..., World Series runner-up, and finally World Series winner

[weams]

1 minute ago, Dale said:

How about implementing a 3-3-3 rule:

The top 3 draft choices shall be given out to the teams with the 3 highest winning percentages in the previous year of teams that have not made the playoffs for 3 years and have not had a top 3 draft choice in the last 3 years.  The next group of draft choices will be based on winning percentage from teams that did not make the playoffs in the past year.  The next group of teams will be play-in losers sorted by winning percentage, ..., World Series runner-up, and finally World Series winner

The idea is to punish large market teams relative to the rest. 

[Dale]

Well we need to come up with a way that doesn't suppress salaries to get the player's union on board 

For spin purposes, any proposal should aid small market teams rather than ... 

 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Dale said:

Well we need to come up with a way that doesn't suppress salaries to get the player's union on board 

For spin purposes, any proposal should aid small market teams rather than ... 

 

Yea, we have to hold teams like the Rays back, so they can't use that financial edge to bludgeon other teams.

 

 

[weams]

1 minute ago, Dale said:

Well we need to come up with a way that doesn't suppress salaries to get the player's union on board 

For spin purposes, any proposal should aid small market teams rather than ... 

 

So, get rid of the revenue sharing. Tax spending over a cap at 10X - have teams with the worst record draft first in all rounds. Impose an international draft doing the same. 

 

A salary floor just gets you expensive bad baseball. 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, weams said:

So, get rid of the revenue sharing. Tax spending over a cap at 10X - have teams with the worst record draft first in all rounds. Impose an international draft doing the same. 

 

A salary floor just gets you expensive bad baseball. 

Or, just get better.

I'm in favor of just getting better.

[weams]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Or, just get better.

I'm in favor of just getting better.

I have no believe that 30 billionaires or representatives of huge groups can ever agree on anything that would be better. It has to be imposed. 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, weams said:

I have no believe that 30 billionaires or representatives of huge groups can ever agree on anything that would be better. It has to be imposed. 

I'm saying instead of complaining about the Yankees, the O's should just get better. 

Every team has enough money coming in to support winning an adequate amount of the time.

[DrungoHazewood]

29 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm saying instead of complaining about the Yankees, the O's should just get better. 

Every team has enough money coming in to support winning an adequate amount of the time.

Isn't that what they're trying to do?  The complaint seems to be that people find not putting any of your scarce resources into the MLB team for 3-4 years to be distasteful. They want a team in Baltimore to compete every year with teams from gigantic, rich metropolises despite a system that makes that challenging.

 

 

[LookinUp]

12 hours ago, atomic said:

The Orioles get more draft picks and more international slot money plus there is profit sharing.  If the Orioles were better managed they would have more revenue.  They have a better GM and better scouts.  Better analytics and better international facilities.  All things that are relatively cheap.

Not necessarily responding to this, but the worst part about the modern Yankees and Dodgers is they're not just rich, they're also at the cutting edge of smart baseball. We can say things like scouting and analytics are relatively cheap, but money helps get the best, get more of the best, train and develop all of that more than other teams, etc. That is why Andrew Friedman left the Rays and went to the Dodgers.

Wishing away the benefits of more revenue across all aspects of the organization does not hide the fact that revenue helps at all levels.

[OFFNY]

On 8/14/2019 at 7:58 AM, DrungoHazewood said:

 

Then maybe there's a problem with Major League Baseball that they allow one team to have a setup where they can generate $650M a year, and they're expected to play on an even field with teams that generate one-third or less of that. Whatta you mean you're not spending 120% of revenue on payroll? Are you even trying?

Perhaps MLB should have contracted down to four or six teams in the 1920's, when the Yanks had to slum with the filthy lower castes and sometimes finished 50 or 60 games ahead of the Browns, and Red Sox.  

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Camden_yardbird said:

 

Thank God that someone else is saying it too, because I feel like I have been the only one. I see this USA today article, and Deadspin article that say "Baseball should relegate teams that dont want compete" and scream to myself "then maybe baseball should create a competitive system where mid to small market teams don't have to tank to rebuild."

We have so many numbers in baseball. It's clear to everyone that the top pick in the draft is infinitely more important than even the middle of the first round (60% bust rate v. 71% bust rate.) Article

We have the anaysis of the last CBA where the analyst said "this will favor large market teams due to lower revenue sharing." Article

We have a MLB standings board where 3 division leaders are the largest market teams in them (Dodgers, Yankees, Cubs) two are in top 10 US markets (Astros, Atlanta) and the the last division has only one large market team that is rebuilding (CWS.)

We see decreasing interest, and lower attendance.

And yet no one is asking whether this system is designed to be fair, or provide a good on field product in 30 cities. It's maddening.

 

o

 

We may have been few and far between, but I have been saying it also ........

 

o

On 10/11/2018 at 10:08 AM, OFFNY said:

o

 

Citing the Yankees' payroll in relation to that of the Orioles'payroll this season particular season omits the picture/the point of which anybody who has even the slightest idea of understanding overall/broad context knows. Their payroll has dropped considerably over the last 2-3 seasons, but that has been due largely to big contracts coming off the the books (Rodriguez, Teixeira, Jeter, etc), not necessarily a conscious effort by the Yankees to considerably tighten their pocket strings. The Orioles, on the other hand, have had a major black cloud hanging over their head for the past several seasons due to the disastrous Chris Davis contract, and that headache/black cloud will continue to torment and hamstring them for the next several seasons unless Davis decides to abruptly retire and forfeit most of the money still owed to him by the Orioles ........ that would not be the case if he were with the Yankees. For mid-market and small-market teams, if they splurge on one or two highly expensive free agents that don't work out (like the Orioles did with Chris Davis), those teams will likely be moderately to severely hamstrung financially as a result of those signings for several years. Subsequently, in light of all of the money tied up with the Davis contract, the Orioles' hand was forced in regard to trading Manny Machado ....... a team like the Yankees would have no such black cloud hanging over their heads if they were in the same situation. It doesn't matter if they spend a lot of money on free agents that either bust and/or don't live up to the expectations that they had of them when they gave them all of that money (Carl Pavano, A. J. Burnett, Randy Johnson, Alex Rodriguez, Mark Teixeira, etc.) Or for that matter, Derek Jeter in the last few years of his career. Jeter wasn't a free agent signing, but he was a player that was making boatloads of money at that time ($16 Million a year over the final 5 years of his career between 2010 and 2014), and he was nowhere near that type of money player in his last 2 years with the team. But for the Yankees and their short-term and long-term budgets, no matter ....... they can keep spending, with little or no repercussions. There is the luxury tax situation for teams that spend excessively, but I'm talking about repercussions that seriously/adversely affect their thinking and their general financial situation in any meaningful way. Sure, the Yankees would like to avoid the luxury tax when they can, but if they don't, it's not like it then will significantly change their overall situation at-large. They certainly would not be remotely considering the possibility of letting a player like Manny Machado leave via free agency with only a draft pick coming back their way (or trading him, as the Orioles did) if they really wanted to keep him. 

The fact that Yankees can spend and waste and not miss a beat (and the Orioles cannot) is much more fundamentally important when critiquing and comparing a team's spending than is a solitary season's payroll, if the assertion is that they are in the same neighborhood (as yours is.) They are 2 very different neighborhoods, with one similarity.

 

o

 

[eddie83]

I did some research yesterday/today. I was looking at Top rWAR leaders in the AL and NL for batters and pitchers. I was curious about player ages. I started looking at Top 30 in each league. I wound up settling at the top 63 players total in MLB. 

For batters, 19 of Top 20 were in their age 20’s. 95%. In the top 63, only 11 players are in their 30’s. That means 83% are in their 20’s.  I decided to go back and look at 1999 and see the difference from that time. That year in the top 63, there were 31 players in their 30’s. Once again this is for position players. That year it was 49%. 

Pitchers are different, 27 of the top 63 pitchers by rWAR are in their 30’s. The top 6 and 8 of top 11 are players aged 30 and older. Also 11 of top 20.  

Obviously we all know that veterans are no longer getting big contracts. Not trying to be Captain Obvious. That said,  I just do not understand how exactly the Heyman’s of the world expect teams in this age to be better unless they go the Orioles route. Is he saying that teams should spend on veterans that the numbers say aren’t worth it? Should they invest huge money in the SP market knowing full well the risk of pitchers and that one pitcher doesn’t change a team? 

Without question those numbers do not mean there are not valuable players below the top 63, of course there are. That said the best position players in the sport are the ones who are not available to the rebuilding teams. Those players aren’t being traded to bad teams, they aren’t FA’s. Manny and Harper were unique cases. 

We saw years ago even when the aging curve was different that patching a team doesn’t work. Pitchers are different but look at Alex Cobb. A ton of risk at a high cost. 

I know it isn’t new that youth is key but I just wanted to dig a little deeper into the numbers. The people complaining are ignoring the obvious and unless things change there isn’t another solution. 

[eddie83]

3 hours ago, Camden_yardbird said:

Thank God someone else is saying it too, because I feel like I have been the only one.  I see this USA today article, and Deadspin article that say "Baseball should relegate teams that dont want compete" and scream to myself "then maybe baseball should create a competitive system where mid to small market teams dont have to tank to rebuild."

We have so many numbers in baseball.  It's clear to everyone that the top pick in the draft is infinitely more important than even the middle of the first round (60% bust rate v. 71% bust rate). Article

We have the anaysis of the last CBA where the analyst said "this will favor large market teams due to lower revenue sharing." Article

We have a MLB standings board where 3 division leaders are the largest market teams in them (Dodgers, Yankees, Cubs) two are in top 10 US markets (Astros, Atlanta) and the the last division has only one large market team that is rebuilding (CWS).

We see decreasing interest, and lower attendance.

And yet no one is asking whether this system is designed to be fair, or provide a good on field product in 30 cities.  Its maddening.

The Yankees, Cubs and Dodgers have young position player talent. That is to their credit. Their money helps to expand their rosters and they can handle risk in terms of spending on pitching. That is their real advantage. That said without their position player talent all that spending would not work. Not in this era.  

[fansince71]

How is it that the MFY’s can have 100 guys spend time on the DL and still have the best record? Every single guy they call up mashes the crap outa the ball! Is there some magic fairy dust in those pin stripes?