Jealous

[Redskins Rick]

11 minutes ago, atomic said:

With the way the World Series TV ratings are going it is probably be going to be that way before long.  The world is changing.  Us old dudes are the ones supporting baseball. We won't be around forever. 

I think MLB has a ways to go before they are finished

Quote

Fox scores its biggest audience of the series so far, boding well for Wednesday's deciding contest.

Game six of baseball's World Series jumped in the ratings Tuesday, giving Fox its largest audience of the series so far. The other broadcast networks were fairly steady despite the big audience for the Washington Nationals' 7-2 victory over the Houston Astros to force a seventh game.

In the fast nationals, Fox averaged 15.31 million viewers for the World Series game, easily the biggest audience of the series so far. Adjustments for the live broadcast put Tuesday's game at 16.43 million viewers, up 44 percent from Sunday's game five (11.39 million viewers) and up 42 percent from the series average of 11.59 million. Fox drew the biggest audience for a baseball game since the deciding contest of last year's World Series, which brought in 17.63 million people.

Fox easily led the night with a 3.8 rating in adults 18-49, pending updates for its live baseball telecast. NBC is second at 1.1, followed by ABC at 0.8. CBS averaged 0.6. The CW, Telemundo and Univision all tied at 0.4.

Considering how many channels there are, its hard to pull down the same ratting as when there was only 4 channels in the market.

[MDtransplant757]

Of course the Nats would win one before the orioles in my lifetime. This sucks 

[DoughBoy52]

11 hours ago, orpheus100 said:

They did it the cheap, everyone deserves a trophy way by winning the stupid wild card game to even get into the playoffs.

At least the Orioles were in first place in large divisions winning their titles.

The wild card sucks but that stupid game needs to be trashed ASAP

It’s been pointed out many times that the Nats started 19-31 and then finished on a tear. They were the hottest/best team in baseball for the last four months of the season. No way they weren’t deserving of the wild card opportunity that they seized. And when you look at it through that lens, it’s really not all that surprising that they took the championship despite having only 93 wins. 

[Redskins Rick]

1 minute ago, DoughBoy52 said:

It’s been pointed out many times that the Nats started 19-31 and then finished on a tear. They were the hottest/best team in baseball for the last four months of the season. No way they weren’t deserving of the wild card opportunity that they seized. And when you look at it through that lens, it’s really not all that surprising that they took the championship despite having only 93 wins. 

despite 93 wins, thats funny.

League Winners have won with lesser amounts.

[eddie83]

35 minutes ago, atomic said:

I am sure Baltimore could support an NBA and an NHL team.  Las Vegas supports an NHL team.  There is no hockey history to Vegas.  

Not so sure I agree here. I think a big issue Baltimore has is a lack of Fortune 500 companies. It just isn’t that big of a market either. 

Plus with DC having teams it will never happen. 

The city needs a new arena to be able to attract even an AHL team. Not sure that would work either like years ago. The Blast play in Towson now. 

[DoughBoy52]

3 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

despite 93 wins, thats funny.

League Winners have won with lesser amounts.

True! It just pales in comparison to Houston’s 107 and makes a casual observer think a lesser team won. Now, the 2014 Royals buzzsaw that we ran into... (yes, still very bitter!)

[MDtransplant757]

5 minutes ago, DoughBoy52 said:

True! It just pales in comparison to Houston’s 107 and makes a casual observer think a lesser team won. Now, the 2014 Royals buzzsaw that we ran into... (yes, still very bitter!)

They just hired Mike Matheny to manage them. My dad has more merit to manage a team than that guy does

[Redskins Rick]

3 minutes ago, MDtransplant757 said:

They just hired Mike Matheny to manage them. My dad has more merit to manage a team than that guy does

I think his record reflects more accomplishments than you give him credit for

 

Team	From	To	Regular season record				Post–season record
			G	W	L	Win %	G	W	L	Win %
St. Louis Cardinals	2012	2018	1065	591	474	.555	43	21	22	.48

[DoughBoy52]

4 minutes ago, MDtransplant757 said:

They just hired Mike Matheny to manage them. My dad has more merit to manage a team than that guy does

 

Just now, Redskins Rick said:

I think his record reflects more accomplishments than you give him credit for

 

Team	From	To	Regular season record				Post–season record
			G	W	L	Win %	G	W	L	Win %
St. Louis Cardinals	2012	2018	1065	591	474	.555	43	21	22	.48

I think a lot of the team’s winning was despite him being at the helm. Such a solidly consistent franchise. Cards fans I know were driven crazy by the guy. 

[Redskins Rick]

1 minute ago, DoughBoy52 said:

 

I think a lot of the team’s winning was despite him being at the helm. Such a solidly consistent franchise. Cards fans I know were driven crazy by the guy. 

6 years is big accomplishment.

Yes, some guys win with teams built and handed off to them. 

at the end of the day, you got to give the man some credit.

Its not like he was a 6 year manager of a last place team in the dungeons of MLB.

[spiritof66]

11 minutes ago, ThomasTomasz said:

Strasburg is also able to be a free agent this year if he opts out.  He was one of the early adoptees of those clauses. 

And to say the Nationals and Astros were built through free agency is a terrible take.  They also made trades, which is the result from stockpiling talent while being so terrible, and developed their own talent.  It takes all of these approaches to make a successful time, but it results from having an established talent pipeline, which is what Mike Elias is trying to build.  

The main core of the Nationals run, from 2012 to now, were two former #1 overall picks- Harper and Strasburg.  Then you've got Rendon who was drafted sixth.  Erick Fedde was a first round pick.  Two first round picks (Giolito and Dunning) were sent to acquire Adam Eaton.  Ryan Zimmerman was the club's first, first rounder after the Expos. Juan Soto signed for $1.5m as an IFA, as did Victor Robles for $200k.  Trea Turner was acquired for Souza, who was a third round pick.  

As for the Astros, their history is well documented, but Bregman and Correa were all drafted at the top of the draft while they were tanking.  Verlander and Cole were acquired for prospects they had stockpiled.  They sent a great haul of prospects over to Arizona for Grienke.  Yuli Gurriel was a free agent from Cuba and given a hefty contract.  Jose Altuve was an undrafted free agent.  George Springer was a former first round pick.  Yordan Alvarez was an IFA acquired from the Dodgers.  Kyle Tucker was the fifth pick overall in his draft.

So as I said above, it's all about the talent pipeline.  Both teams also had low payrolls during the times they werent competing, and increased them once the core was ready to go.  This is why I've maintained that, when the Padres are finally ready to compete, their list of top 100 prospects is going to be thinned out via trades because that is what the Astros and Nationals, as well as the Cubs, have done before them.  Expect the Padres to be active trading some of those prospects this off-season to add to their current core of major leaguers.  So what the Orioles need to do now is to continue drafting at the top of the draft, continue banking funds for free agency, continue to build relationships internationally and keep adding technology so we are at the cutting edge of it.  Once that pipeline is secure, we could very well be mentioned in the same breath as the Astros, Cubs, Nationals, Yankees or Dodgers for sustained success from a talent pipeline. 

That sounds nice, but I think it's highly improbable the Orioles can get to that point if I assume the structure of MLB doesn't change dramatically. (I'll also assume that the stupid and arrogant decisions by Peter Angelos and his pre-Duquette hires won't recur, and that beginning in 2018 decisions that affect the team have been and will be made intelligently and competently.)

Here are a few reasons:

1. It takes time to build the size and quality of productive internal resources like analytics, scouting, player development and marketing. The "sustained success" teams mentioned in the prior post (NYYs, Cubs, Dodgers, Astros, Nats -- the Nats don't really belong in the "sustained success" category, at least not yet, and I would add the Red Sox and Cardinals), as well as many of the other ML franchises, are way ahead of the Orioles in most of these areas, and most of them will be working to expand and improve their own departments, maintaining their competitive edge over teams like the Orioles. Many of them have a lot more money to do that with, and a lot more experience in doing that, and a very large head start in reputation among prospective signers and their advisors.

2.  The Orioles are way behind when it comes to scouting, spending on, signing (including signing big-bonus prospects more likely to reach the big club) and developing international talent. Some of the teams that are ahead of them have a lot more experience in doing those things, more money to spend, and a large head start in reputation among prospective signers and their advisors, And they are not standing still. They are upgrading, improving, and adapting to the limits imposed by the international slot regime, including huge investments in facilities by the Dodgers and probably others. Even if you were to identify a point in the future when the Orioles are adding Latin American talent that is equivalent to that brought on by "sustained success" teams, most of that that talent will be at least four to six years away from helping the Orioles.

3. None of the "sustained success" teams mentioned by either the previous poster or me competes in a division with a team that has substantially higher revenues. The Orioles compete with two such teams, and a third team, the Jays, has the potential to bring in much more revenue than the Orioles. Someone might ask, "What about Tampa Bay's ability to compete successfully in the AL East?" Well, what about it? I agree that the Rays have performed impressively in light of their limited resources. I don't fully understand how they've done as well as they have, but one contributing factor is their ruthless trading of their young talent before it reaches free agency, so that there has never been and may never be a long-term Ray, other than Evan Longoria, sort of, with ten years as a Ray before he was traded. In their 22 years, the Rays have won two division titles and three wild-card spots, and in the past ten years they have finished first once, second twice, fourth three times, fourth twice, and fifth once. (Many of those finishes have been buoyed a spot by the Orioles' lousiness, and if we're expecting the Orioles to improve it is almost certain to be at the expense of the Rays.) Pretty good under the circumstances, but I wouldn't call it "sustained success."  

4. The Nats were able to get to the postseason this year in part because of disappointing performances by two of their north-by-Amtrak NL East competitors. The Braves were very good, but hardly a great team, the Phillies and Mets each looked strong at times but eventually pulled the old cheap-suitcase routine, and the Marlins were terrible. The Nats' 93 wins would not have gotten them a wild card spot in the AL. When the NYYs or RS had uncharacteristic off-years in '12, '14 and '16, the Orioles were able to climb through a somewhat similar window. But when your recipe for getting to the postseason calls for other teams' playing unexpectedly badly, I wouldn't call the end-product "sustained success." 

The Orioles are one of nine MLB teams (the others are the Jays, Rays, Brewers, Pirates, Reds, Pads, Rockies and D-Backs) that have and, unless there is a realignment or some other significant change affecting teams' relative financial resources, will continue to have a lot less money to spend than their division rivals. None of them has had sustained success for a very long time, and it's unlikely -- not impossible, but unlikely -- any of them will. These teams appear to me to have three choices, with a limitless number of variations. 

• They can jump on (or stay on) a treadmill of mediocrity, trying to win as many games as they can each year and hope to catch the proverbial lightning in a bottle (say, by drafting a Mike Trout or two, or having a bunch of guys have breakout seasons together), or use what they believe to be their front-office brilliance and farsightedness to outmaneuver other teams like Branch Rickey or (maybe) Billy Beane, or hope for divisional rivals to fade or collapse for a season or two. If something like that happens, they can try to pick up a couple of still-productive (even if overpriced) veterans to put them over the top.   
   
• They can do what the Astros did and the Orioles are doing: toss in their cards from a bust hand and, while the team is really bad, try (with talent collected from all sources, including trading veterans and high draft picks) to stockpile player value that will peak over a few years, in the hope that they can win something over, say, a three-to-five-year stretch, and then toss in that hand, maybe retaining more value and winning more games than in the first cycle, and repeat the process.
   
• They can follow the Rays' model and try to stay competitive by acquiring a stream of valuable players, including other teams' castoffs, and trading those players once they establish their value, creating a constant churn of players sporting the Rays laundry without much concern for the effect on the team's fans (not a big deal in Tampa since there isn't going to be much of a fan base anyway).

The first approach has not worked too well in recent years. It's not yet clear how well either of the last two  will work in the AL East (or NL Central or NL West). But none of them is a model that seems capable of creating sustained success for a team like the Orioles. I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't think that's realistic.

 

[JR Oriole]

6 minutes ago, DoughBoy52 said:

 

I think a lot of the team’s winning was despite him being at the helm. Such a solidly consistent franchise. Cards fans I know were driven crazy by the guy. 

The Cardinals are the Spurs of MLB.....they are always good no matter who puts on the uniform.  Daffy Duck could manage that team to an above .500 record. 

[JR Oriole]

I think lightning in a bottle works sometimes.  As great as Scherzer, Strausburg, and Rendon are, the Nats won this championship primarily because a player who made 578K this year piled up one massive clutch hit after another.  They don't beat Milwaukee without Soto's base hit.  They don't beat the Dodgers without his homer off Kershaw.  They don't get past the Astros without his tone setting bombs off of Cole and Verlander.  Obviously lots of other guys contributed, but in terms of return on investment, what Soto just delivered was unmatched. 

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, ThomasTomasz said:

The main core of the Nationals run, from 2012 to now, were two former #1 overall picks- Harper and Strasburg.  Then you've got Rendon who was drafted sixth.  Erick Fedde was a first round pick.  Two first round picks (Giolito and Dunning) were sent to acquire Adam Eaton.  Ryan Zimmerman was the club's first, first rounder after the Expos. Juan Soto signed for $1.5m as an IFA, as did Victor Robles for $200k.  Trea Turner was acquired for Souza, who was a third round pick.  

I’d add Jordan Zimmermann (2nd round 2007) to your list.   He was a key piece of the 2012-15 teams.

[Redskins Rick]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I’d add Jordan Zimmermann (2nd round 2007) to your list.   He was a key piece of the 2012-15 teams.

I think also overlooked was spending the money for Scherzer who had earned every penny and then some.