How far are the O's away from being a winning team?

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, owknows said:

To what I considered a trivial distinction

I think you are mistaken.  I think it is a huge difference.

[owknows]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

I think you are mistaken.  I think it is a huge difference.

The Angelos family owned the team before. And they own them now.

The premise being asserted seems to be that the Sons are Cheapskates, and the Father was not.

I offered an alternative explanation.

That perhaps the father spent recklessly. And the sons are not cheapskates, but are attempting to learn from their father's mistakes... And will spend when they deem it prudent and sustainable. It would seem to me that this is a more likely explanation.

I guess time will tell.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, owknows said:

Yeah...  you said it brother.

The Chris Davis, Ubaldo Jimenez, Mark Trumbo, Alex Cobb, Andrew Cashner,  signings were all just a clever ruse on the part of ownership to grossly overspend for years...  so they could later use that folly to justify their REAL desire to be cheap SOB's.

And they'd have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids.

You have seen the payroll in recent years right?  Just making sure you are smart enough to see that the payroll number is much smaller than it was 2-5 years ago.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

You have seen the payroll in recent years right?  Just making sure you are smart enough to see that the payroll number is much smaller than it was 2-5 years ago.

They are just saving up to make a big splash when the prospects are ready.

 

[forphase1]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

You have seen the payroll in recent years right?  Just making sure you are smart enough to see that the payroll number is much smaller than it was 2-5 years ago.

As it should be.   That's almost a textbook definition of what takes place during a rebuild....

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, owknows said:

The Angelos family owned the team before. And they own them now.

The premise being asserted seems to be that the Sons are Cheapskates, and the Father was not.

I offered an alternative explanation.

That perhaps the father spent recklessly. And the sons are not cheapskates, but are attempting to learn from their father's mistakes... And will spend when they deem it prudent and sustainable. It would seem to me that this is a more likely explanation.

I guess time will tell.

Firstly I'd categorize the elder Angelos' spending as unwise not reckless.

Secondly I think the more likely explanation is that the sons need to pull profit out of the team to a greater extent than their father did.

I'm just a schmuck sitting at a computer but stuff like this doesn't look good to me.

https://legalnewsline.com/stories/538238763-angelos-waves-white-flag-on-thousands-of-asbestos-cases-after-firm-can-t-convince-lawmakers-to-help

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, forphase1 said:

As it should be.   That's almost a textbook definition of what takes place during a rebuild....

I missed the part of the Astros rebuild when they fired coaches for making too much money.

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

As it should be.   That's almost a textbook definition of what takes place during a rebuild....

The rebuild is over...they can and should start spending (as of this past offseason)

[Aristotelian]

2 hours ago, foxfield said:

Elias is a pretty respected baseball guy who is young enough to still have plenty to prove.  If you honestly believe that Elias is investing his own time and reputation in pushing a narrative to cover ownership...well, I'll just say I think you are wrong.

That doesn't mean I disagree that ownership isn't cheap.  But the more enduring image really, is that ownership has done a poor job of hiring good baseball people and then staying out of their way.  The son's seem to have allowed Elias to completely rebuild even though they have given no indication they will ever spend money.  But I also think it would be unfair to cast the rebuild as being hampered by tight fisted ownership.  

At the end of the day, I think Elias wants to rebuild the Orioles into a winning franchise because that is the narrative that speaks well to his future and more importantly how baseball will judge him.

I give up arguing with this guy and put him on ignore. It's clear he has his point of view.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, owknows said:

The Angelos family owned the team before. And they own them now.

The premise being asserted seems to be that the Sons are Cheapskates, and the Father was not.

I offered an alternative explanation.

That perhaps the father spent recklessly. And the sons are not cheapskates, but are attempting to learn from their father's mistakes... And will spend when they deem it prudent and sustainable. It would seem to me that this is a more likely explanation.

I guess time will tell.

The father did spend poorly.

I don’t think that matters in terms of what the kids are doing.  They have had opportunities to maximize trades over money and they chose money.  I don’t buy that they are doing more fiscally responsible things because of their fathers past sins.  

[owknows]

45 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Firstly I'd categorize the elder Angelos' spending as unwise not reckless.

Secondly I think the more likely explanation is that the sons need to pull profit out of the team to a greater extent than their father did.

I'm just a schmuck sitting at a computer but stuff like this doesn't look good to me.

https://legalnewsline.com/stories/538238763-angelos-waves-white-flag-on-thousands-of-asbestos-cases-after-firm-can-t-convince-lawmakers-to-help

Unwise vs. reckless... again.. a distinction with an insignificant difference.

At least to me.

As for the Angelos family... while I'm sure the Asbestos gravy train ain't what it used to be, I have to think they have looked to investments other than sports to grow the family's considerable wealth. I always looked at the Orioles as a hometown hobby to Angelos (the elder). While it made him money I don't think it was his primary interest in the team.

As for the sons...  I really don't have access to the family books. None of us do. And I'm not dismissing your premise out of hand. I have seen some things that have made me raise an eyebrow from time to time. For example... the firing of coaching staff in the offseason. But I've seen decisions to spend even larger amounts of money than that (Latin American Facilities for example) that counterbalance that possibility.

So with all of that understood... I believe that Occam's Razor places us  in a rebuild situation... with spending being extra-judicious until a path to competition is clear. And that is what I will choose to believe until I see stronger evidence to the contrary.

[owknows]

14 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The father did spend poorly.

I don’t think that matters in terms of what the kids are doing.  They have had opportunities to maximize trades over money and they chose money.  I don’t buy that they are doing more fiscally responsible things because of their fathers past sins.  

The point was that they would learn from their fathers' mistakes..  and do things more responsibly to make a mid market franchise a sustainable winner. Peter's spending was not sustainable, and in fact damaged the club into the future. Surely if the sons are not idiots, they do not wish to repeat this..  and would therefore be more careful.

This is a perfectly rational premise.

Is it the only possible scenario?  Of course not.

They could be cheapskates as you have asserted.

Or they could be facing solvency challenges as Corn has asserted.

Or they could be preparing to sell the team as others have asserted.

Or... they may simply be doing what they tell us they're doing.

Edited May 13, 2021 by owknows

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, owknows said:

The point was that they would learn from their fathers' mistakes..  and do things more responsibly to make a mid market franchise a sustainable winner. Peter's spending was not sustainable, and in fact damaged the club into the future. Surely if the sons are not idiots, they do not wish to repeat this..  and would therefore be more careful.

This is a perfectly rational premise.

Is it the only possible scenario?  Of course not.

They could be cheapskates as you have asserted.

Or they could be facing solvency challenges as Corn has asserted.

Or they could be preparing to sell the team as others have asserted.

Or... they may simply be doing what they tell us they're doing.

They have 100% been cheapskates.  That isn’t even up for debate.

That doesn’t mean I think they will be going forward.  In fact, I have said I expect them to spend and get the payroll way higher in the coming years.

The idea of them selling is also a potential point that we just don’t know about.

[owknows]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

They have 100% been cheapskates.  That isn’t even up for debate.

 

Well... Clearly it is.  Cuz I'm debating it.

[Sports Guy]

Just now, owknows said:

Well... Clearly it is.  Cuz I'm debating it.

Ok..it can’t be debated with any facts.  You can go back to the 2018 trades for proof of that.

You can go back to the comments from Elias about the Giants/Angels trade where the Giants “bought a prospect” from the Angels and he essentially said, I would like to do that but I can’t.

They have, without question, valued saving money over getting the best possible return in trades.