Extending Home Grown vs FA

[theocean]

19 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

You almost have to wonder if part of the plan is to leave the organization a mess?

By not adding MLB quality starters you are really waving the white flag. The AAA/AAAA rotation will get hammered often this coming season.

by not trading Manny, Zach, Brach, and perhaps Jones you are taking a very high risk of getting nearly nothing for them. But draft picks that are miles away.

by pausing on Schoop you are creating the Manny situations all over again.

the blunders tell me that the decision makers don’t care. The fantasy world of “competing” by Buck and Duquette is just ridiculous. 

It was pretty obvious that a rebuild was/is needed based on how last season went and the Yankees adding and the Orioles dumpster diving.

We need New ownership in the worst way.

I don't fault the O's for going for it with this core. It seemed that was always the plan with everyone's contracts all ending the same year. 

I was six when the O's made the playoffs in 1997. Didn't really appreciate it because I was a little kid and didn't understand the game. 

It then took until I was 21 in 2012 to see a winning baseball team in this town. I graduated elementary school, middle school, high school, learned to drive, graduated from college, got my first big-boy job, bought a car, got my own place, could legally drink, and lost my virginity all before the O's could get a team on the field that could win more than 81 games again.

Rebuilds aren't fun. Let's enjoy a team with some real talent on it in 2018. If they are lousy this year, they have until July 31st to trade some guys and expedite the rebuilding process. But until then, let's see what happens when the boys actually take the field March 29th.

 

[Can_of_corn]

11 minutes ago, theocean said:

I also think that this year's free agents are generally pretty lousy and will all end up being regrettable signings by whatever team eventually gets them. I think that's why the most chatter we've heard through journalists about the O's this offseason has been in regards to trades.

Free agency is a bad way to build a team. A team like the O's needs to be able to develop pitching in-house, they just are really bad at it. Thus, the team's situation this offseason.

I think most of us agree that the top end of the free agent market isn't a good choice for a team like the O's.

But they also haven't done much in the lower end of the market, where bargains do exist, and they haven't done much trading of note either.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, theocean said:

I don't fault the O's for going for it with this core. It seemed that was always the plan with everyone's contracts all ending the same year. 

I was six when the O's made the playoffs in 1997. Didn't really appreciate it because I was a little kid and didn't understand the game. 

It then took until I was 21 in 2012 to see a winning baseball team in this town. I graduated elementary school, middle school, high school, learned to drive, graduated from college, got my first big-boy job, bought a car, got my own place, could legally drink, and lost my virginity all before the O's could get a team on the field that could win more than 81 games again.

Rebuilds aren't fun. Let's enjoy a team with some real talent on it in 2018. If they are lousy this year, they have until July 31st to trade some guys and expedite the rebuilding process. But until then, let's see what happens when the boys actually take the field March 29th.

 

Do you honestly think the 2018 team has a realistic chance at even the second wild card as currently constructed?

As for rebuilds, I think they are fun.  The losing part stinks of course but I'd rather watch young kids than overpriced vets if we are going to lose either way.  I also enjoy tracking the minor leagues.

[clapdiddy]

10 minutes ago, theocean said:

I also think that this year's free agents are generally pretty lousy and will all end up being regrettable signings by whatever team eventually gets them. I think that's why the most chatter we've heard through journalists about the O's this offseason has been in regards to trades.

Free agency is a bad way to build a team. A team like the O's needs to be able to develop pitching in-house, they just are really bad at it. Thus, the team's situation this offseason.

Agree with your take on free agency.   It's a nice way to supplement your team, but not build one.

You are absolutely right about developing pitching.  It's obvious that we'll never attract a top-tier starter, so we need to develop them.  I think we've got some good, young arms in the system.   I just hope that we stop worrying about TTTP and focus on commanding the fastball.

[wildcard]

I don't think that its that they want to cut payroll.    Its that they don't like what they can buy for their money.  Very risk averse team.

This article  mentions but does not give a fair weight to the revenue generation of the Orioles and MASN.  Angelos  fought hard to keep the Baltimore/Washington area that is buy in 1993.   When MLB would no longer allow him to do that,  he smartly negotiated  the keep the local TV right to both areas.   Since that he has fought to keep the majority of the revenue from MASN in court against MLB wishes.   

Peter may not be the greatest owner on putting the best team on the field but he has been outstanding at holding onto the Orioles/MASN revenue.

Cutting payroll is not the point.   Angelos does not want to pay large amount of money to players that are on the DL or out of  baseball due to non performance.   So he is caution.   And that is why there have not been more off season spending this year.  But there are still players to be had.  Probably on short term, lower risk contracts.

[Redskins Rick]

Maybe they are not cutting payroll, and this is just a market adjustment for them, as they ramped up to try and make a playoff run last season.

Maybe, they have something left to spend, in anticipate of Manny or Schoop or both?

Maybe the payroll will be back in the 140m range after they pick up pitchers.

too many what ifs right now.

[Redskins Rick]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

I don't think that its that they want to cut payroll.    Its that they don't like what they can buy for their money.  Very risk averse team.

This article  mentions but does not give a fair weight to the revenue generation of the Orioles and MASN.  Angelos  fought hard to keep the Baltimore/Washington area that is buy in 1993.   When MLB would no longer allow him to do that,  he smartly negotiated  the keep the local TV right to both areas.   Since that he has fought to keep the majority of the revenue from MASN in court against MLB wishes.   

Peter may not be the greatest owner on putting the best team on the field but he has been outstanding at holding onto the Orioles/MASN revenue.

Cutting payroll is not the point.   Angelos does not want to pay large amount of money to players that are on the DL or out of  baseball due to non performance.   So he is caution.   And that is why there have not been more off season spending this year.  But there are still player to be had.  Probably on short term, lower risk contracts.

I agree.

They could have sent Britton packing for much cheaper than keeping him.

 

[clapdiddy]

4 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I don't think that its that they want to cut payroll.    Its that they don't like what they can buy for their money.  Very risk averse team.

This article  mentions but does not give a fair weight to the revenue generation of the Orioles and MASN.  Angelos  fought hard to keep the Baltimore/Washington area that is buy in 1993.   When MLB would no longer allow him to do that,  he smartly negotiated  the keep the local TV right to both areas.   Since that he has fought to keep the majority of the revenue from MASN in court against MLB wishes.   

Peter may not be the greatest owner on putting the best team on the field but he has been outstanding at holding onto the Orioles/MASN revenue.

Cutting payroll is not the point.   Angelos does not want to pay large amount of money to players that are on the DL or out of  baseball due to non performance.   So he is caution.   And that is why there have not been more off season spending this year.  But there are still players to be had.  Probably on short term, lower risk contracts.

A risk averse team doesn't sign Davis and Trumbo to the contracts they received.

[interloper]

Just now, clapdiddy said:

A risk averse team doesn't sign Davis and Trumbo to the contracts they received.

PA doesn't view those players as risky. They've stayed largely healthy and they hit home runs. We view them as risky because we know these types of players decline rapidly. But the players PA views as risky are pitchers with arm issues. 

[wildcard]

4 minutes ago, clapdiddy said:

A risk averse team doesn't sign Davis and Trumbo to the contracts they received.

That is bad  judgement not risk aversion.  Both were coming off outstanding seasons and where young enough to repeat those good years.    Bad judgement to give 7 years to Davis.  Bad judgement to give big money to a DH that does not hit as a DH.

[clapdiddy]

Just now, wildcard said:

The is bad  judgement not risk aversion.  Both were coming off outstanding seasons and where young enough to repeat those good years.    Bad judgement to give 7 years to Davis.  Bad judgement to give big money to a DH that does not hit as a DH.

I'm not sure that risk aversion and bad judgement aren't equivalent.    The Trumbo contract was livable.   Only 3 years, not too big of a deal.  The problem with it is that we already had a limited fielding guy in Davis and our best up-and-coming prospects were outfielders.  

Davis had a history of PED usage.   Could that not be considered a risk?

[wildcard]

15 minutes ago, clapdiddy said:

I'm not sure that risk aversion and bad judgement aren't equivalent.    The Trumbo contract was livable.   Only 3 years, not too big of a deal.  The problem with it is that we already had a limited fielding guy in Davis and our best up-and-coming prospects were outfielders.  

Davis had a history of PED usage.   Could that not be considered a risk?

What does limited fielding guy mean?  Davis is a very good fielder.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

What does limited fielding guy mean?  Davis is a very good fielder.

He's a detriment in the field anywhere but first.

[wildcard]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

He's a detriment in the field anywhere but first.

And Caleb Joseph would not be a good  shortstop. Nor Jones for that matter.

[interloper]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

And Caleb Joseph would not be a good  shortstop. Nor Jones for that matter.

Lol. Right. 

Guy is good at the position he plays =/= he's a detriment in the field.