Rebuild mode or Sell mode?

[Roll Tide]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If you were Kim and you had an offer from the Padres and the O's how much more money would the O's have to offer you?

Depends what position he wants to play. He’s likely not pushing Machado off SS and might not even start for them. For the Orioles he’d be the SS with no doubt. He could be sold on the talented pipeline and a young team coming out of the rebuild. Maybe you can’t get him ....but I think they should make a strong early pitch.

[Redskins Rick]

2 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Depends what position he wants to play. He’s likely not pushing Machado off SS and might not even start for them. For the Orioles he’d be the SS with no doubt. He could be sold on the talented pipeline and a young team coming out of the rebuild. Maybe you can’t get him ....but I think they should make a strong early pitch.

Heck the warmer San Diego year long climate would be a big draw for me.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Roll Tide said:

Depends what position he wants to play. He’s likely not pushing Machado off SS and might not even start for them. For the Orioles he’d be the SS with no doubt. He could be sold on the talented pipeline and a young team coming out of the rebuild. Maybe you can’t get him ....but I think they should make a strong early pitch.

Machado doesn't play short for the Padres.

And I asked how much more they would have to offer you.

On one hand you have a playoff team on the west coast who is making big moves and on the other you have an East coast team who is in year four of win s don't matter with no end in sight.  I'd have to really prefer playing short over second.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

Heck the warmer San Diego year long climate would be a big draw for me.

Pay me millions and I'd much rather live in SD.

[Redskins Rick]

14 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Machado doesn't play short for the Padres.

And I asked how much more they would have to offer you.

On one hand you have a playoff team on the west coast who is making big moves and on the other you have an East coast team who is in year four of win s don't matter with no end in sight.  I'd have to really prefer playing short over second.

The Padres just went through a 12 year drought with losing record and crappy ball.

One playoff trip in a covid-19 shortened/impacted season, isn't something to bet the farm for a repeat playoff visit.

The Padres ownership isnt anything to brag about either, they have had their problems since he brought the team.

 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

The Padres just went through a 12 year drought with losing record and crappy ball.

One playoff trip in a covid-19 shortened/impacted season, isn't something to bet the farm for a repeat playoff visit.

The Padres ownership isnt anything to brag about either, they have had their problems since he brought the team.

 

Wow, what kind of crap franchise goes through a twelve year playoff drought?

[Redskins Rick]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Wow, what kind of crap franchise goes through a twelve year playoff drought?

Thanks for the laugh, I needed that.

[Camden_yardbird]

Split the difference.  The Orioles went into a rebuilding phase right about the same time that questions about ownerships future surfaced.

Both models want to reduce overhead and decrease future commitments.  I think the owners are still figuring it out themselves.

What tilts this for me toward sell mode is the lack of a stadium deal right now.  Even a rebuilding franchise should want that (maybe even more to have the cost certainty) but a team in sell mode would not.  If you want to maximize the sale price you make sure you are not precluding a large buyer pool (including one that may want to move the team).

That said, even if the Angeloses are open to that buyer pool I don't think they will sell to someone who would move the team, they would just use those buyers to increase the price for a buyer who will keep the team in Baltimore. 

 

[LookinUp]

18 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

As I have said, I’m fine with him tanking for a few years.  In that time, he traded away what he could, lowered the payroll for the short and long term and added to the system.  I wanted that.  I’m glad he did it.  I was perfectly fine watching a terrible product for a few years.  I called for the team to do that 12-15 years ago and everyone on here said they were rebuilding.  Now you all see what rebuilding actually is, which is not what the Os did in the 2000s.  

He doesn’t need to do that anymore though.

He can go out and win 80 games this year and still do everything people are asking him to do..the only difference is that in 2022, the draft pick will be in the 11-16 range instead of top 5.  That is literally the only difference outside of your draft pool and most of that pool is the difference in where you pick in the first round anyway.

Nothing else you guys talk about requires the team losing 95+ games.  That’s my issue.  The way everyone is accepting a crap product when it’s not needed.  If you have faith in Elias as a scout, developer, etc..you should have faith that he can draft outside of the top 10 and still get quality guys.  Anyone can pick a top 3 talent.  That’s not hard.

 

You've made this point just about every way it can be made, but I still think you're wrong.

I don't see how this team gets to 80 wins without spending pretty big, unless our young guys are really good. In that case, we're better because of the product that will be on the field for THIS team anyway. Sure, you could keep Iglesias or pay 20-30 million for a "good" starter at SS, but if I'm Elias or ownership, to what end do I do that? I go from 72 to 75 wins, at best. Is that worth it? No, well add a "good" starting pitcher too. And a "good" 3B. Before you know it we're at +$30 million in payroll all for a decently competitive team that has absolutely zero chance to defeat the monsters in our division. And in that context, I think we can get within say 5-7 games of the same mark and save a ton of money doing it. That's a similarly competitive and enjoyable team, IMO.

I get from the fan perspective that we want a more competitive team, but from an ownership perspective I don't see the cost-benefit. I do believe that some savings can go to future spending in theory, but more likely that lower financial commitments means a better sale after PA passes away. In that context, this all makes perfect sense.

The hardest part about smoking, going on a diet, working out, etc., is not the beginning, it's seeing it through over time. That Phillies article is really instructive in that regard. They never got their drafting/development in order and that meant they didn't have a pipeline to support the team. They assumed they had the depth they needed. I don't want the O's to be that team, and that means I still want them trading pieces and drafting high to build that depth. The real future roster is coming through Norfolk, not Cincinnati.

[Sports Guy]

20 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

You've made this point just about every way it can be made, but I still think you're wrong.

I don't see how this team gets to 80 wins without spending pretty big, unless our young guys are really good. In that case, we're better because of the product that will be on the field for THIS team anyway. Sure, you could keep Iglesias or pay 20-30 million for a "good" starter at SS, but if I'm Elias or ownership, to what end do I do that? I go from 72 to 75 wins, at best. Is that worth it? No, well add a "good" starting pitcher too. And a "good" 3B. Before you know it we're at +$30 million in payroll all for a decently competitive team that has absolutely zero chance to defeat the monsters in our division. And in that context, I think we can get within say 5-7 games of the same mark and save a ton of money doing it. That's a similarly competitive and enjoyable team, IMO.

I get from the fan perspective that we want a more competitive team, but from an ownership perspective I don't see the cost-benefit. I do believe that some savings can go to future spending in theory, but more likely that lower financial commitments means a better sale after PA passes away. In that context, this all makes perfect sense.

The hardest part about smoking, going on a diet, working out, etc., is not the beginning, it's seeing it through over time. That Phillies article is really instructive in that regard. They never got their drafting/development in order and that meant they didn't have a pipeline to support the team. They assumed they had the depth they needed. I don't want the O's to be that team, and that means I still want them trading pieces and drafting high to build that depth. The real future roster is coming through Norfolk, not Cincinnati.

What am I wrong about?

This post seems to be about whether or not they can do enough to be a more competitive team.  
 

There really isn’t a right or wrong there.  It’s all about opinion or what you want to see them do.  That really isn’t the argument I was discussing within the context of rebuilding.

 

 

[LookinUp]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

What am I wrong about?

That they should be spending money now to be decent.

I do agree in theory re: spending money creatively to acquire more players/trade bait, but I think that theory is easier said than done, and most of the time has a very questionable cost/benefit. Either way, we don't massively differ on that point.

I don't see the value in spending $20-$30 million to make this team marginally more competitive though. 

 

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

That they should be spending money now to be decent.

I do agree in theory re: spending money creatively to acquire more players/trade bait, but I think that theory is easier said than done, and most of the time has a very questionable cost/benefit. Either way, we don't massively differ on that point.

I don't see the value in spending $20-$30 million to make this team marginally more competitive though. 

 

Well it’s an opinion, so I don’t think you can say it’s wrong.

And the spending now is also for someone(s) who can help you later.  I think they should be adding a starter.  I wanted Stroman but that obviously won’t work now.  But obtaining a starter that can be here for 3-4 years?  Yes, they should do that imo.  
 

I think they should be obtaining better options for the left side of the IF.  
 

Zero reason why we should have to watch guys who, if they are lucky, are replacement level players.  That’s lazy, cheap and unnecessary at this point.  

[LookinUp]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Well it’s an opinion, so I don’t think you can say it’s wrong.

And the spending now is also for someone(s) who can help you later.  I think they should be adding a starter.  I wanted Stroman but that obviously won’t work now.  But obtaining a starter that can be here for 3-4 years?  Yes, they should do that imo.  
 

I think they should be obtaining better options for the left side of the IF.  
 

Zero reason why we should have to watch guys who, if they are lucky, are replacement level players.  That’s lazy, cheap and unnecessary at this point.  

But who is the starter, SS or 3B and what is the cost? I agree with your points in theory, but is the cost of that in $$ or trade assets worth it?

To me, if that person isn't a part of the next contending team, it's likely not worth it. In theory, Stroman would have been. So could Kim. So it's not like I'm against any acquisition. I just think they can be cheap and almost as good this year with no difference in the future rather than expensive and a little better this year with no difference in the future.

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

But who is the starter, SS or 3B and what is the cost? I agree with your points in theory, but is the cost of that in $$ or trade assets worth it?

To me, if that person isn't a part of the next contending team, it's likely not worth it. In theory, Stroman would have been. So could Kim. So it's not like I'm against any acquisition. I just think they can be cheap and almost as good this year with no difference in the future rather than expensive and a little better this year with no difference in the future.

This team goes nowhere without the existing talent becoming something.  We all know that (or you should know it)

But you need to supplement your talent.  Look at what SD is doing for example.  The roster is going to be cheap for a while.  You can afford to acquire expensive talent.

You also have to start making decisions on a lot of these prospects or you will be exposing them like you did with Pop.  Losing guys for nothing is terrible roster management.  Depth is great but too much depth can be an issue if you don’t address it and use it in other ways.

[LookinUp]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

This team goes nowhere without the existing talent becoming something.  We all know that (or you should know it)

But you need to supplement your talent.  Look at what SD is doing for example.  The roster is going to be cheap for a while.  You can afford to acquire expensive talent.

You also have to start making decisions on a lot of these prospects or you will be exposing them like you did with Pop.  Losing guys for nothing is terrible roster management.  Depth is great but too much depth can be an issue if you don’t address it and use it in other ways.

Supplement it with who? Specifically? Are we blocking people with the guys we're adding? Doesn't that philosophy contradict yourself?

Also, we're a year or two away from where San Diego was last offseason. That is when they got Machado and started making huge trades, from a farm system that was very superior to ours.

We might agree on specific players. Heck, I could be talked into spending at SS, for example, if we think the guy will be producing in 2-3 years. I kind of hate the 3B options, so if a deal could be worked out for a guy like Cronenworth who might fit there, I'm ok with it. But I'm ok trading relief pitchers or guys that maybe others value more than us (Diaz possible there, in theory). I'm not ok trading guys like Hays though. The value isn't there. I'll take the health risk.