Olney on O’s losing

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Penalizing  teams for losing is not addressing the real problem.  The great disparity between the rich team's resources compared to the smaller market teams is the issue.     The tanking to get high draft choices is just a symptom of the real problem.

This is completely wrong and such a cop out answer.  One player does not change the fortunes of a baseball team.

The real disparity isn’t money…it’s ownership and intelligence.  The Os seemingly have intelligence now although that isn’t shown at the ML level yet but they still have the ownership issue.

People want to point to salary caps and bs like that.  It’s meaningless.  There are a few teams that spend like crazy and they have shown, over the last several years, that it doesn’t matter..they still suck.

The Dodgers don’t win because they spend more than everyone.  They win because they draft and develop so well and they are able to spend.  Boston and NY have struggled a lot in the last 8-10 years because their farm systems have been sh**.   So while they have spent, all they have done is bring in older talent that will eventually break  down or decline.  

[Jagwar]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

You can improve the PD system and win games.

Its not an either/or situation.

And btw, many of the players that have allowed this system to be ranked highly right now were here before Elias got here and Adley was gift wrapped to him and you can argue that he picked the wrong guy anyway and should have taken Witt.

That said, Adley is obviously a great prospect and should be the best C in baseball soon enough.

I understand but I'm not sure that's entirely true. Everything we are discussing here costs money, and dollars are a limited commodity. If it takes $10 million to beef up international scouting and $10 million to institute a long over due analytics department (I'm making these numbers up), then that is $20 million you don't have to spend on a few free agents to get 75 wins instead of 60. 

[wildcard]

4 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

The best players in the sport are young. You don’t get them by signing scraps off the FA pile. 
 

There is a cost to anything. The White Sox were mediocre. Blew it up and received good talent in return. They were terrible for a couple of years. Then when that young talent and existing talent in house converge they spent money. 

The White Sox had a losing record for 7 straight years (2013-2019) before turning it around in 2020.

[eddie83]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

 

The Royals are on pace for 70 wins.  They spent money in the offseason trying to be good and they have promoting some of their young guys who figure to help long term.  They have also been aggressive with Witt’s promotion.

I think it’s fair to mention them.

They play in a weaker division for one. Yes, the Orioles would still be terrible in the Central, not arguing that. Benintendi hasn’t done much, Minor has not been great. Santana hasn’t been special. 
 

Who on their current team will be good in 2/3 years? 
 

The media likes their “effort.”  I can show you a ton of Orioles teams in the 2000’s that did stuff similar. It accomplished nothing. 

[fitzi22]

10 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Penalizing  teams for losing is not addressing the real problem.  The great disparity between the rich team's resources compared to the smaller market teams is the issue.     The tanking to get high draft choices is just a symptom of the real problem.

WC you are absolutely right and if the new CBA reduces the controllable years for young talent below 6 years as the players union wants, it will only exacerbate the problem.

[eddie83]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

The White Sox had a losing record for 7 straight years (2013-2019) before turning it around in 2020.

They really sucked after dealing Sale, Quintana and Eaton is my point. They got worse before getting better. 

[wildcard]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

This is completely wrong and such a cop out answer.  One player does not change the fortunes of a baseball team.

The real disparity isn’t money…it’s ownership and intelligence.  The Os seemingly have intelligence now although that isn’t shown at the ML level yet but they still have the ownership issue.

People want to point to salary caps and bs like that.  It’s meaningless.  There are a few teams that spend like crazy and they have shown, over the last several years, that it doesn’t matter..they still suck.

The Dodgers don’t win because they spend more than everyone.  They win because they draft and develop so well and they are able to spend.  Boston and NY have struggled a lot in the last 8-10 years because their farm systems have been sh**.   So while they have spent, all they have done is bring in older talent that will eventually break  down or decline.  

Who the heck said anything about one player.  If a team picks first  it picks first in every roll of the draft.

[eddie83]

5 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

This is completely wrong and such a cop out answer.  One player does not change the fortunes of a baseball team.

The real disparity isn’t money…it’s ownership and intelligence.  The Os seemingly have intelligence now although that isn’t shown at the ML level yet but they still have the ownership issue.

People want to point to salary caps and bs like that.  It’s meaningless.  There are a few teams that spend like crazy and they have shown, over the last several years, that it doesn’t matter..they still suck.

The Dodgers don’t win because they spend more than everyone.  They win because they draft and develop so well and they are able to spend.  Boston and NY have struggled a lot in the last 8-10 years because their farm systems have been sh**.   So while they have spent, all they have done is bring in older talent that will eventually break  down or decline.  

Your last point is what pisses me off about Olney. What does he want then to do? 
 

If the Orioles would have signed Galvis, Harvey and Franco for $15M the union would have been more happy and the team still sucks.  

[GuidoSarducci]

Its also wrong the Dodgers can spend like $300m on payroll, $100m more than even the second place Yanks.  

The Orioles are following a strategy that will allow them to (hopefully) ultimately compete with teams like the Red Sox and Yankees who can afford FA mistakes and not be crippled.

This strategy includes cutting payroll includes during years in which they can't be competitive due to lack of cheap in-house talent, so they can sign FAs which will make them competive when their cheap in-house talent matriculates to the majors. 

Hate the game not the players.

Edited August 10, 2021 by GuidoSarducci

[Sports Guy]

16 minutes ago, Jagwar said:

I understand but I'm not sure that's entirely true. Everything we are discussing here costs money, and dollars are a limited commodity. If it takes $10 million to beef up international scouting and $10 million to institute a long over due analytics department (I'm making these numbers up), then that is $20 million you don't have to spend on a few free agents to get 75 wins instead of 60. 

Nah.  Almost every team is able to do both of these things.  
 

The Os clearly have the money to do both.  It’s wrong to imply otherwise.

[Sports Guy]

16 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

They play in a weaker division for one. Yes, the Orioles would still be terrible in the Central, not arguing that. Benintendi hasn’t done much, Minor has not been great. Santana hasn’t been special. 
 

Who on their current team will be good in 2/3 years? 
 

The media likes their “effort.”  I can show you a ton of Orioles teams in the 2000’s that did stuff similar. It accomplished nothing. 

The Orioles accomplished nothing because they didn’t have a foundation to build off of.  That’s the key point that you are missing.

[Sports Guy]

13 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

Your last point is what pisses me off about Olney. What does he want then to do? 
 

If the Orioles would have signed Galvis, Harvey and Franco for $15M the union would have been more happy and the team still sucks.  

He wants them to put a product on the field that is competitive.  That’s not asking too much.

[Sports Guy]

14 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Who the heck said anything about one player.  If a team picks first  it picks first in every roll of the draft.

So?  Why does that matter?  The 32nd pick and 45th pick are random.  The Orioles could have picked 12th in this years draft and could have had the exact same draft.  

[eddie83]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The Orioles accomplished nothing because they didn’t have a foundation to build off of.  That’s the key point that you are missing.

What foundation at the MLB level do they have now? It’s still on the way. 

[eddie83]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

He wants them to put a product on the field that is competitive.  That’s not asking too much.

He ignores how they got here. It was dysfunctional with no chance at long term success He references the union. This is all about whining that bad teams don’t overpay for the mid and low level Fa’s like in the old days. That accomplishes nothing.