RANT: It's not even November Yet and...

[Satyr3206]

It doesn't matter, but if it had been $4 mil. spread out over four players, the chance of success would have been better. My point was, if that one player is a bust, it hurts them a lot more then the RS, Mets, Yankees, Cubs, or whatever deep pocket team.

I agree with your points, but the RS and Yankees already spend big $ on the draft and international scouting, while also spending on big money FA. You can't deny that's a huge disadvantage for the teams with lesser money. Which again brings up my original point. How can the O's close the gap, when NY and Bos already have the foreign market cornered, already pay over slot to sign draft picks, and are able to sign FA?

They can do things better and smarter as a franchise, but in the end, there always behind playing catchup, and I sont see that changing anytime soon. I hope I'm wrong.

EDIT: Also, the reason why I bring up the RS and Yankees, isn't to single them out. Its because they are the two biggest spending teams, that just happen to be in our division. They are who we have to catch up with, and eventually pass if we ever what a shot at winning the Division. I just don't see TB sustaining their success, without increasing their payroll. No way they can keep going with a payroll of $44 mil. Eventually, there looking at doubling their payroll, maybe even a little more. And I don't think that team, in that city can support a $85-100 mil payroll. And how good will they draft picking out of the top 5, when the players aren't as much of a sure thing, or fall because of signability? Will they take the risk and/or can they spend to pay over slot? I mean, David Price, Evan Longoria, and BJ Upton were easy choices. It was smart to lock up Longoria, but in 5 years when he's a FA again, they have no shot at keeping him, unless they gut the rest of the team around him. JMHO.

I think your being overly negative. The fact is the Red Sox went 86 years without a WS title. The Yankees were down in the late 60's and into the early 70's. They also haven't won a WS in 8 years and have huge holes in their ML team and their MiL system. The Sox have also been very lucky with some of their recent picks. Since both of these teams have been around for a long time and have a financial advantage and both have had significant down times, the money can't be the only issue. It's all about the Management and making good decisions.

If MacPhail is left alone for the next 3 to 4 years to rebuild the entire Organization I have no doubt the Orioles can and will compete with the Yankees and Red Sox. He has been at the disadvantage of cleaning up other peoples messes.

As for the Rays at some point they will have to decide who to extend and who to let walk. Thats when you trade the players that don't figure into your plan and restock. It's a self perpetuating system. Draft well, build up depth and surplus, keep some, trade others to restock. There are numerous teams that are doing this successfully. D'backs, Marlins, Twins, Brewers, Rays.

Money alone won't make good decisions or produce a winner. Look no further than Hank Steinbrenner to confirm that.

[osfan83]

I think your being overly negative. The fact is the Red Sox went 86 years without a WS title. The Yankees were down in the late 60's and into the early 70's. They also haven't won a WS in 8 years and have huge holes in their ML team and their MiL system. The Sox have also been very lucky with some of their recent picks. Since both of these teams have been around for a long time and have a financial advantage and both have had significant down times, the money can't be the only issue. It's all about the Management and making good decisions.

If MacPhail is left alone for the next 3 to 4 years to rebuild the entire Organization I have no doubt the Orioles can and will compete with the Yankees and Red Sox. He has been at the disadvantage of cleaning up other peoples messes.

As for the Rays at some point they will have to decide who to extend and who to let walk. Thats when you trade the players that don't figure into your plan and restock. It's a self perpetuating system. Draft well, build up depth and surplus, keep some, trade others to restock. There are numerous teams that are doing this successfully. D'backs, Marlins, Twins, Brewers, Rays.

Money alone won't make good decisions or produce a winner. Look no further than Hank Steinbrenner to confirm that.

How much did the Yankees and Sox out spend the rest of their division on FA' international signings, and paying above slot, during their down times?

This is not the 60's. In 1964 no team spent more than half of their competitors total roster expense to bring in a pitcher from Japan. In 1968, no team had a payroll 6 times more than other teams in their division.

Right now, MLB is forcing fans to choose sides...Yankees or Redsox. If you are a 13 year old baseball fan, you pretty much line up behind one or the other.

And don't talk to me about the Yanks not winning the WS since 2000. Anyone has a chance in a short series. Let me know when we go 5 straight years without the Yanks or Sox in the post season!

[hoosiers]

EDIT: Also, the reason why I bring up the RS and Yankees, isn't to single them out. Its because they are the two biggest spending teams, that just happen to be in our division. They are who we have to catch up with, and eventually pass if we ever what a shot at winning the Division. I just don't see TB sustaining their success, without increasing their payroll. No way they can keep going with a payroll of $44 mil. Eventually, there looking at doubling their payroll, maybe even a little more. And I don't think that team, in that city can support a $85-100 mil payroll. And how good will they draft picking out of the top 5, when the players aren't as much of a sure thing, or fall because of signability? Will they take the risk and/or can they spend to pay over slot? I mean, David Price, Evan Longoria, and BJ Upton were easy choices. It was smart to lock up Longoria, but in 5 years when he's a FA again, they have no shot at keeping him, unless they gut the rest of the team around him. JMHO.

First, I am tired of the NYY/BoSox "can't match them" arguments. The Rays just handed it to both teams this year despite month-long injuries to Kazmir, Baldelli, Crawford and Longoria. People need to get off this "can't beat those guys" since Tampa just did it this year and appears to be the better team for the future.

Second, regarding future TB teams, I would agree that city can not support a payroll near $85M, but why is that necessary? Look at what Miguel Cabrera yielded in trade? Or Josh Beckett a couple of years ago? Or Bedard? Or Haren? Longoria, Kazmirr, these guys can be dealt a year or two from FA and, assuming fair value is received, Tampa Bay will just keep chugging along.

It's easy to just look at $ and say TB can not compete long term, but I think people need to take off those sunglasses and start thinking of ways that TB actually can compete long term and perhaps it might not be as difficult as one believes.

[Satyr3206]

How much did the Yankees and Sox out spend the rest of their division on FA' international signings, and paying above slot, during their down times?

This is not the 60's. In 1964 no team spent more than half of their competitors total roster expense to bring in a pitcher from Japan. In 1968, no team had a payroll 6 times more than other teams in their division.

Right now, MLB is forcing fans to choose sides...Yankees or Redsox. If you are a 13 year old baseball fan, you pretty much line up behind one or the other.

And don't talk to me about the Yanks not winning the WS since 2000. Anyone has a chance in a short series. Let me know when we go 5 straight years without the Yanks or Sox in the post season!

It's not the 60's anymore? What am I going to do with all those tie dyed t shirts now?

Since I don't live in Baltimore anymore maybe I have a different perspective. Here at the Redneck Riviera we have people from all over and trust me it's not just Red Sox and Yankee fans. In fact, I've seen more Orioles fans this year than the previous 5 years. It's mainly tied to geography and who your parents grew up rooting for. Btw, my 10 yr old is an O's fan and I'm bringing him up to CY this summer for his first ML game.

Yes, anything can happen in a short series. But under the logic of this thread, teams that spend more will have a huge advantage over the other teams and win far more often. Tell that to the Rays. Or the Yankees while they're sitting at home watching the playoffs. It is not a given that money will make you a winner.

My point is that you don't worry about what your competition is doing, you worry about what you have to do to get your team to compete. And the history says teams can compete with a reasonable payroll. You can look it up.

[TiredofLosing20]

I have had this argument with many people.

A hard salary cap is badly needed in MLB.

IMO, you have to first understand that baseball is entertainment and is a product. Is there a better way to ensure entertainment for all parties than to keep all parties interested in their chosen team. I am a free market kind of guy but again this is entertainment. I don't think anyone can argue that the current system does not lend to a level playing ground. Simply put Oakland and Tampa and Pittsburgh do not have the room for error that the big payroll cities NY, Boston, LA, Chicago have. Now of course spending a lot of money does not guarantee success, it just provides a better opportunity to succeed. When attempting to sell a entertainment product nothing is better than ensuring competitiveness and fair play. Want proof, see the NFL, some could argue that they have simply marketed their product better well they are right and one of those marketing tools is to level the playing field through a salary cap.

The owners really should be for a salary cap, look at what it has done for NFL owners. Based on 2008 Forbes franchise values, the hallowed Yankees are less valuable than the Washington Redskins who haven't won a superbowl since the early 1990's. The Redsox who are second in franchise value in MLB are less valuable as a franchise than all NFL teams.

I hear the argument about how money doesn't guarantee success and while I agree, but it can not be denied that it has a lot to do with it. Since 1995, only 3 of 13 world series has not included at least one high payroll team (New York, Boston, Chicago, or LA)

Does a salary cap mean that those four teams would not still win, no, but it would ensure that they would have to be more efficient and savvy and make better management decisions than everyone else to do it, not simply buy other teams best players.

[osfan83]

It's not the 60's anymore? What am I going to do with all those tie dyed t shirts now?

Since I don't live in Baltimore anymore maybe I have a different perspective. Here at the Redneck Riviera we have people from all over and trust me it's not just Red Sox and Yankee fans. In fact, I've seen more Orioles fans this year than the previous 5 years. It's mainly tied to geography and who your parents grew up rooting for. Btw, my 10 yr old is an O's fan and I'm bringing him up to CY this summer for his first ML game.

Yes, anything can happen in a short series. But under the logic of this thread, teams that spend more will have a huge advantage over the other teams and win far more often. Tell that to the Rays. Or the Yankees while they're sitting at home watching the playoffs. It is not a given that money will make you a winner..

I made a post a few years ago showing the effect of payroll on odds of making the payoffs. I will have to find some time this off season to do it again. basically teams that spent in the top 3rd of the league were far more likely to make the post season. The middle tier would send a team or two a year, and the bottom third very rarely make the playoffs.

This year, without looking at the numbers Boston/ LAA both probably in the top third. White Sox? maybe top third.

National League...Philly, LAD, Cubs all top third? Brewers, middle third?

I don't think anyone is saying the O's can't be run better, or that it is impossible for a low payroll team to make the playoffs and win a couple of 7 game series.

But if if I had to bet $100 on the top 4 teams that I think will make the payoffs over the next 10 year, I would pick Bos, Yanks, and then either the Mets, Dodgers, Angeles or Cubs.

The Royals, Pirates, Rays, O's, Jay's, all need to be very smart and very lucky to put together a string of playoff apperences. The Yanks, Sox, Mets, and others don't have to be as smart or as luckly to accomplish the same.

My point is that you don't worry about what your competition is doing, you worry about what you have to do to get your team to compete. And the history says teams can compete with a reasonable payroll. You can look it up

[osfan83]

I have had this argument with many people.

A hard salary cap is badly needed in MLB.

IMO, you have to first understand that baseball is entertainment and is a product. Is there a better way to ensure entertainment for all parties than to keep all parties interested in their chosen team. I am a free market kind of guy but again this is entertainment. I don't think anyone can argue that the current system does not lend to a level playing ground. Simply put Oakland and Tampa and Pittsburgh do not have the room for error that the big payroll cities NY, Boston, LA, Chicago have. Now of course spending a lot of money does not guarantee success, it just provides a better opportunity to succeed. When attempting to sell a entertainment product nothing is better than ensuring competitiveness and fair play. Want proof, see the NFL, some could argue that they have simply marketed their product better well they are right and one of those marketing tools is to level the playing field through a salary cap.

The owners really should be for a salary cap, look at what it has done for NFL owners. Based on 2008 Forbes franchise values, the hallowed Yankees are less valuable than the Washington Redskins who haven't won a superbowl since the early 1990's. The Redsox who are second in franchise value in MLB are less valuable as a franchise than all NFL teams.

I hear the argument about how money doesn't guarantee success and while I agree, but it can not be denied that it has a lot to do with it. Since 1995, only 3 of 13 world series has not included at least one high payroll team (New York, Boston, Chicago, or LA)

Does a salary cap mean that those four teams would not still win, no, but it would ensure that they would have to be more efficient and savvy and make better management decisions than everyone else to do it, not simply buy other teams best players.

Exactlly!!! Go to a Harlem Globetrotters game, how many kids root for the Washington Generals? If MLB is not careful several teams will be thought of as nothing but fodder for the big market clubs.

[hoosiers]

So..it's easier to have more early round picks, if you have more money to sign top FA's, that you then let walk after their contract is up.

We could have had additional picks if we had let Mora and Millar walk at various points in the past few years. We probably should have had an extra pick for LaTroy Hawkins.

Earning these picks is significantly more about quality management than about big $ to sign FAs.

[Fan4Life]

Just implement the split-season format as they have in the minors. After the All-star break everyone resets to zero and has a chance to make the playoffs. The fans would fill the seats into August-September as more teams that normally would be 12-15 games out, might be within 5-7. The trade deadline would be very interesting as ALL the teams would be interested in evaluating adding someone for the second half. Thoughts?

[Tx Oriole]

Oh geez. Yes, thye can open up the check book but big deal. I beleive the O's will have to build through the draft and some FA's. I beleive that is the way to go. Why throw 180 million or more on just one player? I don't believe the O's need to go that way. I know a lot of fans want the O's to sign Tex. I know he is a good player. A GG but the O's just have too many holes to to throw all your cash on one guy. First would be fixed for the team. But the hole at SS, 3rd maybe 2nd if Roberts is traded. And don't forget the pitching this team needs. I believe they need to add SP's this coming season if that is possible. Yes, there are a lot of arms in the minors but they will be ready for 2010 and they all are not going to be a hit. IMO

[osfan83]

Oh geez. Yes, thye can open up the check book but big deal. I beleive the O's will have to build through the draft and some FA's. I beleive that is the way to go. Why throw 180 million or more on just one player? I don't believe the O's need to go that way. I know a lot of fans want the O's to sign Tex. I know he is a good player. A GG but the O's just have too many holes to to throw all your cash on one guy. First would be fixed for the team. But the hole at SS, 3rd maybe 2nd if Roberts is traded. And don't forget the pitching this team needs. I believe they need to add SP's this coming season if that is possible. Yes, there are a lot of arms in the minors but they will be ready for 2010 and they all are not going to be a hit. IMO

So you would rather spend money on short term, less talented, stop gap players who can help us win 72 games next year, than long term elite players that could help us win 88 games in 2010?

[nadecir]

You know what's ironic about this thread?

I really doubt that many Orioles fans thought that baseball revenue sharing was a good idea around 1997, when the Orioles had one of the highest revenues in the league. The Orioles had one of the highest payrolls in the league too at that time.

The Orioles had a great opportunity in the mid to late 90's to really set the team apart as one of baseball's best organizations for a extended period. In the mid 90's, we had the a new stadium that was the envy of the league. We had 3.7 million fans flocking to Camden Yards, and we outdrew both the Yankees and the Red Sox by over 1 million fans each. We were at the top of the list of the teams for which players wanted to play.

The Orioles had over 3.7 million fans come to Camden Yards in 1997. If we had 3.7 million fans coming to our ballpark on a regular basis now, I doubt many of us would be calling for increased revenue sharing.

Through some bad hiring, a lack of investment in player development, some really bad drafting, and some poor free agent signings, the Orioles have petered that advantage of the mid to late 90's away. It does go to show you that in a space of 10 years many things can change dramatically in baseball.

[osfan83]

You know what's ironic about this thread?

I really doubt that many Orioles fans thought that baseball revenue sharing was a good idea around 1997, when the Orioles had one of the highest revenues in the league. The Orioles had one of the highest payrolls in the league too at that time.

The Orioles had a great opportunity in the mid to late 90's to really set the team apart as one of baseball's best organizations for a extended period. In the mid 90's, we had the a new stadium that was the envy of the league. We had 3.7 million fans flocking to Camden Yards, and we outdrew both the Yankees and the Red Sox by over 1 million fans each. We were at the top of the list of the teams for which players wanted to play.

The Orioles had over 3.7 million fans come to Camden Yards in 1997. If we had 3.7 million fans coming to our ballpark on a regular basis now, I doubt many of us would be calling for increased revenue sharing.

Through some bad hiring, a lack of investment in player development, some really bad drafting, and some poor free agent signings, the Orioles have petered that advantage of the mid to late 90's away. It does go to show you that in a space of 10 years many things can change dramatically in baseball.

In 1997 did the O's spend 3 times what the Yanks, Sox and Jays spent on their roster?

[nadecir]

In 1997 did the O's spend 3 times what the Yanks, Sox and Jays spent on their roster?

In 1998, we spent about three times what the Rays did on payroll. The Orioles spent over three times what the Tigers, Reds, Athletics, Pirates and Expos spent on payroll. And we spent double what some of today's larger market teams like the Angels, White Sox and Phillies did in 1998.

Revenues are build with good management making solid decisions. And as the Orioles have shown, revenues can be lost by making some poor decisions.

[LookinUp]

It amazes me how many people are arguing points that have been conceeded, while missing the main point.

1. Everyone agrees that the O's management has sucked.

2. Everyone agrees that getting picks, paying over slot, developing players, and investing in the draft are good ways to compete on a talent level, and that Boston in particular has done better than the O's.

3. Nobody is advocating that being able to spend $200m/year on payroll would make us a better franchise.

The bottom line is very simple...with all things being equal except financial stregnth, the O's and many other franchises would have an equal chance to compete. Some franchises would fail, a la the O's, while others would be very good, a la the Twins for example.

However, every aspect of building a winner through acquiring talent - from being able to pay for more over slot guys, to building the best international scouting programs, to signing FAs - is slanted toward the big market teams. This is what is broken and is only getting worse.

For example, most teams aren't even considering Darvish. I wonder why.

I also predict that the MLB draft is only at the beginning of it's income distribution problem. Big market teams have already started to assert their competitive advantage, and they will begin to promise even more high-ceiling players more money to keep them from agreeing to sign with low ceiling teams. Indeed, the MLB draft as it's currently conceived also has the potential to devastate college baseball programs by simply buying a large number of players out of their committments. Heck, we almost did it ourselves this year. This is the slippery slope that baseball has created.

Now, tell me this...how are small market teams going to compete in either player development or free agency once all of the financial advantages really start to bear fruit through the draft?

We're only seeing the beginning of this problem and the relative success of big market versus small market teams is already apparent.