Consolidated thought.

[atomic]

16 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Isn't every corporation and individual interesting in lowering costs? 

Nope.  Cost plus contracts are pretty common. In such cases, higher costs increase profit.

 

  Also in other industries   You increase spending to grow business. Kraft Heinz just lost a ton of profit because they were so focused on reducing costs that they drastically cut R &D budget. Leading to ignoring changing consumer preferences.
 

 Certain businesses rates are set by state regulators and don’t get real benefit from lower costs. 

 

[UpstateNYfan]

19 hours ago, Frobby said:

My reaction to the OP is that teams wouldn’t be doing these things if it wasn’t leading to success on the field.     

True, but what about success in the stands?? If 70% of the teams are looking 3 year opportunities every decade how do you maintain fan interest the other 7 years? The operation was a success, but the patient died.

[sportsfan8703]

20 hours ago, Frobby said:

My reaction to the OP is that teams wouldn’t be doing these things if it wasn’t leading to success on the field.     

I agree. Good thoughts by the OP, but I think we saw this with Sam Hinkie and the 76ers in the NBA at first. Hinkie just got really unlucky that Joel Embiid had foot injuries his first two seasons. 

[weams]

22 hours ago, ChosenOne21 said:

I agree that the pressure to show endless profits and growth is often harmful, but selling stock is how a lot of companies raise money to grow the business. If you can't do that there could be problems

For everyone who wins, there is one who loses. Unless you are a miner in an endless goldmine. And then gold is worth nothing. 

[tntoriole]

23 hours ago, Frobby said:

My reaction to the OP is that teams wouldn’t be doing these things if it wasn’t leading to success on the field.     

Exactly...and first team that goes against the current wave and back to being a bit old school and wins will lead others to change course...baseball owners are  a bit of a fickle bunch as it relates to running their baseball teams. 

[Frobby]

23 hours ago, Frobby said:

My reaction to the OP is that teams wouldn’t be doing these things if it wasn’t leading to success on the field.     

 

4 hours ago, UpstateNYfan said:

True, but what about success in the stands?? If 70% of the teams are looking 3 year opportunities every decade how do you maintain fan interest the other 7 years? The operation was a success, but the patient died.

You are discussing tanking.   Nothing in the OP addressed tanking.    So, my post was not addressing that.    
 

As to tanking, I don’t think it’s a one size fits all solution for all teams in all situations.    When you win 47 games without tanking, have a couple of very bad contracts on the books and have a good portion of the core of your team either reaching free agency or in their decline years, then I think there’s little choice but to adopt a tanking strategy.    

[ChosenOne21]

4 hours ago, UpstateNYfan said:

True, but what about success in the stands?? If 70% of the teams are looking 3 year opportunities every decade how do you maintain fan interest the other 7 years? The operation was a success, but the patient died.

I doubt that fans are much more eager to see a 70 win team than a 40 win one. Feel free to contradict me with average attendance figures over a ten-year span, or so. If we don't tender Jonathan Villar a contract, I doubt enough fans say, "Well that's it, I'm not going to any games this year" to cost us anywhere near the 10 million we saved.

Have you already forgotten the recent Oriole teams that spent and spent on free agents to try to get to .500 before making a run? How did that work out? What brings fans to the game is excellence. And sadly, the best way to get there is to suck for a few years

[Satyr3206]

Have had a Family member in the hospital. Will respond when I have time to read all the comments, thanks.

[theocean]

On 11/24/2019 at 7:36 AM, Can_of_corn said:

Isn't every corporation and individual interesting in lowering costs? 

Certainly, but I'd say the main goal is increasing profit. If your costs rise, but that leads to more revenue and profit - that's more desirable. Apple or Google certainly have more costs than a mom-and-pop store.

At the end of the day, baseball teams play in publicly funded stadiums and there is a partnership there. Taxpayers pay for a nice, expensive stadium because they not only want a quality-of-life improvement in a professional team for entertainment, but also expect that team to provide economic stimulus to their community beyond their initial investment.

If baseball teams are tanking, not providing that stimulus, and not honestly investing in their teams - there's a problem there. It's up to taxpayers to cry foul on that, and that's what you're starting to see people do.

[theocean]

23 hours ago, ChosenOne21 said:

I doubt that fans are much more eager to see a 70 win team than a 40 win one. Feel free to contradict me with average attendance figures over a ten-year span, or so. If we don't tender Jonathan Villar a contract, I doubt enough fans say, "Well that's it, I'm not going to any games this year" to cost us anywhere near the 10 million we saved.

Have you already forgotten the recent Oriole teams that spent and spent on free agents to try to get to .500 before making a run? How did that work out? What brings fans to the game is excellence. And sadly, the best way to get there is to suck for a few years

As far as the Orioles go - 1.3 million fans in 2019. 1.5 million fans in 2018. That dropped off from 2 million fans in 2017 when they went 75-87 and 1.7 million fans when they were 69-93 in 2011.

Lot of other variables there, but I think a 30 win improvement would definitely engage more fans.

 

[Orioles0615]

On 11/24/2019 at 6:07 AM, Satyr3206 said:

Patiently waiting for rules 8, 9, and 10.

8. Buy camera

9. Set up said camera 

10. Bang Bang

11. Profit

[Frobby]

9 hours ago, Satyr3206 said:

Have had a Family member in the hospital. Will respond when I have time to read all the comments, thanks.

Best wishes to your family member for a speedy recovery.  

[ChosenOne21]

43 minutes ago, theocean said:

As far as the Orioles go - 1.3 million fans in 2019. 1.5 million fans in 2018. That dropped off from 2 million fans in 2017 when they went 75-87 and 1.7 million fans when they were 69-93 in 2011.

Lot of other variables there, but I think a 30 win improvement would definitely engage more fans.

 

Okay, but you also have to consider the cost to get those additional wins. If we assume that the difference between 45 and 75 wins is 700 thousand fans and each fan spends an average of $40, that's about 28 million in revenue lost. It might be worth considering shooting for 75 wins if we could get there for say, $15 million or so, but I think that would be pretty hard to do in our situation. You'd also have to count for future value lost because of picking lower in the draft...

Maybe you'd be happier and go to more games if the Orioles won 75, but I've got the specter of 1998-2011 looming large. I'd rather they win 45-ish games the next three years and 95-ish the three after that than win 75 games per year over the same timeframe

[theocean]

21 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

Okay, but you also have to consider the cost to get those additional wins. If we assume that the difference between 45 and 75 wins is 700 thousand fans and each fan spends an average of $40, that's about 28 million in revenue lost. It might be worth considering shooting for 75 wins if we could get there for say, $15 million or so, but I think that would be pretty hard to do in our situation. You'd also have to count for future value lost because of picking lower in the draft...

Maybe you'd be happier and go to more games if the Orioles won 75, but I've got the specter of 1998-2011 looming large. I'd rather they win 45-ish games the next three years and 95-ish the three after that than win 75 games per year over the same timeframe

There's also revenue from improved television ratings. Plus, merchandise and other variables.

I really don't think the O's have to sign the 2020 version of Kevin Millar or Jay Payton to make it 70 wins. It'd be a big help for them to just like not start a bunch of waiver-wire pitchers every other night.

I know everyone is still snakebite from 1998-2011, but those were some really poorly managed teams. We shouldn't be looking at that era as the only alternative to tanking. There's a lot of other possibilities that are easily obtainable.

[LookinUp]

On 11/24/2019 at 5:47 AM, bird watcher said:

Analytics is about efficiency too.

Depending on your definition of efficiency, analytics is about efficiency, period. Why do we analyze? To gain a better understanding of whatever we're studying and ultimately put that better information to use to make things better. The idea that analytics are a problem is silly. They make relatively dumb people smarter. That puts managers and players in better positions to succeed. That's good.

On 11/24/2019 at 6:00 AM, bird watcher said:

Ironically the most idolized manager we’ve ever had was famous for not giving a damn how people felt about what he knew was the right decision.  Bill Belichick is Pretty famous for it too. 

The ironic part about any mention of Belicheck and analytics is the fact that he has been the smartest coach I've ever seen. He knows what players need to do to execute, and he coaches those players to do it. He schemes better than anyone. He does operate in an environment where the use of analytics is generally less applicable than in baseball, but that's the point. He analyzes and is smarter.