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

[owknows]

9 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

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.

"Cheapskate" is a personality trait.

I would expect (contrary to your assertion) that if someone is a cheapskate, that they are universally so.

As opposed to what we'd call a rational person, who restrains their spending when the situation suggests it.

[owknows]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Ok..it can’t be debated with any facts.

Given that the minds and the financial books of the Angelos family are unavailable to us... none of us come to the discussion with anything but our interpretation of events with which to make out points.

That includes you.

 

 

[forphase1]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

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

The rebuild is NOT over.  Yes, we are starting to come out of it, but there is no reason to spend money for this past offseason.  We aren't going to be competitive this year as the farm system isn't yet to the point of producing enough MLB talent to be worth supplementing with free agents.  Hopefully this year will clear some of that issue up, the talent makes enough progress to justify adding some quality free agents to the roster to start pushing for a competitive team.  But I had no problem with them not adding anything expensive to the team this offseason as the rebuild simply isn't to that point yet.  

[Frobby]

I personally think it was in the best long term interests of the team to keep the payroll low this year and not spend this offseason.   I’m hoping that this next offseason will be the beginning of a different approach.   But frankly it depends on how various players develop this year.   You can’t force things just because things haven’t developed on the timetable you hoped for.   So, we’ll see how it goes.  

[Sports Guy]

8 hours ago, owknows said:

Given that the minds and the financial books of the Angelos family are unavailable to us... none of us come to the discussion with anything but our interpretation of events with which to make out points.

That includes you.

 

 

Nah..we know they valued saving money over what they received in trades.

[Sports Guy]

7 hours ago, forphase1 said:

The rebuild is NOT over.  Yes, we are starting to come out of it, but there is no reason to spend money for this past offseason.  We aren't going to be competitive this year as the farm system isn't yet to the point of producing enough MLB talent to be worth supplementing with free agents.  Hopefully this year will clear some of that issue up, the talent makes enough progress to justify adding some quality free agents to the roster to start pushing for a competitive team.  But I had no problem with them not adding anything expensive to the team this offseason as the rebuild simply isn't to that point yet.  

Yes, the rebuild is over.  We have torn down the roster.  We have drafted early for several years in a row. (One of which wasn’t part of the rebuild). We have gotten younger, built up the farm system and taken away long term contract commitments.  
 

All of that is what you do when you rebuild.  
 

Now it’s time to start building back up.

[owknows]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

Nah..we know they valued saving money over what they received in trades.

No. In fact you don't.

You believe this. And that's perfectly fine. But you don't know it. As it speaks to their motivations which you could not possibly know.

 

[Sports Guy]

7 hours ago, Frobby said:

I personally think it was in the best long term interests of the team to keep the payroll low this year and not spend this offseason.   I’m hoping that this next offseason will be the beginning of a different approach.   But frankly it depends on how various players develop this year.   You can’t force things just because things haven’t developed on the timetable you hoped for.   So, we’ll see how it goes.  

You either believe in the talent or you don’t.  You aren’t forcing anything.

Add in a legit back end BP arm and a legit SP.  in terms of positional talent, you see what you have at the end of the year.  You should be able to add a relatively significant bat to the IF this offseason.

3 players...at least, to go along with your existing young core.  You do that and you have a team that has a chance to compete for a WC and perhaps a title the following season.  You don’t have to wait.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, owknows said:

No. In fact you don't.

You believe this. And that's perfectly fine. But you don't know it. As it speaks to their motivations which you could not possibly know.

 

Yes we do..we know they valued getting rid of the ODay contract.  That’s an example.

[owknows]

24 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Yes we do..we know they valued getting rid of the ODay contract.  That’s an example.

I think my point is pretty clear here.

You presume to be able to read the minds of the owners, and to divine their intentions.

And you declare your interpretation of their motivations to be true and correct, where all other interpretations are incorrect.

And when challenged, generally employ sophistry, or otherwise shift the argument.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with you having an opinion as to the owners' intentions here.

This exchange started with your declaration that the current ownership are cheapskates. And that this inherent cheapness is what motivates their actions regarding spending on free agents that might improve the club.

Several other explanations for the current level of spending were offered.

That the team may have solvency issues was one such explanation. You of course have repeatedly dismissed this possibility declaring that the ownership has "plenty of money" and that they're just cheap.

That the team may be attempting to employ fiscal discipline temporarily, to ride out a period of bad spending by ownership's father... before returning to reasonable and sustainable levels of spending as farm assets mature is another possible explanation here. But no.. that couldn't be it either. It's because they're cheap and greedy you instruct us.

And you may be right in your opinion. But you might also be wrong. You can observe events and opine about them just like the rest of us. But your repeated failure here is essentially hubris. You seem to lack the ability to differentiate your opinion from fact. Lacking omniscience, you cannot declare your opinion of the motivations of others to be fact.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

 

Edited May 13, 2021 by owknows

[Redskins Rick]

8 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

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.

You are way out of the park.

I will agree they are cheapskates on their payroll. 

Usually when you toss out the cheapskates tag, it applies to everything.

For example when Bidwell owned the Cards, players have to provide their own Soaps and Shampoos in the shower, and he would provide game gloves for the receivers to use in the game.

They also traveled as cheap as possible.

We have discussed this in OH many times. The Orioles travel well, and they do not play cheapstakes in that aspect.

They also spent much needed money on Sarasota and now spending money in the DOR.

 

[DrungoHazewood]

26 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Nah..we know they valued saving money over what they received in trades.

I think you too quickly dismiss the impact of being a small/mid market team that lost half or 3/4ths of their revenues last season.  And that was following two of their lowest-attended seasons since the 1970s.

The Angeloses weren't eating cans of cold beans, but the team was/is at least temporarily poor in MLB franchise terms.

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, owknows said:

I think my point is pretty clear here.

You presume to be able to read the minds of the owners, and to divine their intentions.

And you declare your interpretation of their motivations to be true and correct, where all other interpretations are incorrect.

And when challenged, generally employ sophistry, or otherwise shift the argument.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with you having an opinion as to the owners' intentions here.

This exchange started with your declaration that the current ownership are cheapskates. And that this inherent cheapness is what motivates their actions regarding spending on free agents that might improve the club.

Several other explanations for the current level of spending were offered.

That the team may have solvency issues was one such explanation. You of course have repeatedly dismissed this possibility declaring that the ownership has "plenty of money" and that they're just cheap.

That the team may be attempting to employ fiscal discipline temporarily, to ride out a period of bad spending by ownership's father... before returning to reasonable and sustainable levels of spending as farm assets mature is another possible explanation here. But no.. that couldn't be it either. It's because they're cheap and greedy you instruct us.

And you may be right in your opinion. But you might also be wrong. You can observe events and opine about them just like the rest of us. But your repeated failure here is essentially hubris. You seem to lack the ability to differentiate your opinion from fact. Lacking omniscience, you cannot declare your opinion of the motivations of others to be fact.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

 

Lol...do you really think the Angelos sons haven’t valued saving money over trades?  You don’t think there is factual evidence there? Seriously?

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think you too quickly dismiss the impact of being a small/mid market team that lost half or 3/4ths of their revenues last season.  And that was following two of their lowest-attended seasons since the 1970s.

The Angeloses weren't eating cans of cold beans, but the team was/is at least temporarily poor in MLB franchise terms.

They were being cheap before 2020.

[Sports Guy]

5 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

You are way out of the park.

I will agree they are cheapskates on their payroll. 

Usually when you toss out the cheapskates tag, it applies to everything.

For example when Bidwell owned the Cards, players have to provide their own Soaps and Shampoos in the shower, and he would provide game gloves for the receivers to use in the game.

They also traveled as cheap as possible.

We have discussed this in OH many times. The Orioles travel well, and they do not play cheapstakes in that aspect.

They also spent much needed money on Sarasota and now spending money in the DOR.

 

We are obviously talking about payroll.