Don Long is out per Roch

[MurphDogg]

We don't have near enough info to judge Long's coaching abilities, nor Holt's.  Remember Holt was the minor league pitching coordinator, when all these guys that are struggling in the Majors were succeeding in the minors.

That said, it is tough to give the O's the benefit of the doubt on personnel decisions, so it is tough to have much of an opinion.

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

We don't have near enough info to judge Long's coaching abilities, nor Holt's.  Remember Holt was the minor league pitching coordinator, when all these guys that are struggling in the Majors were succeeding in the minors.

That said, it is tough to give the O's the benefit of the doubt on personnel decisions, so it is tough to have much of an opinion.

I’m OK with giving Holt another year, even though our pitching staff stunk this year.   But I’d certainly expect significant improvement and hold him accountable if not.  

[Sports Guy]

I don’t know if we will hear about money in any of these decisions but I am expecting that cheaper options will be brought in.

[SteveA]

12 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I don’t know if we will hear about money in any of these decisions but I am expecting that cheaper options will be brought in.

Could the total $$ saved by bringing in "cheaper options" for every single person that got fired this week amount to even $1 million?

Do you really think the budgetary concerns are THAT tight?

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, SteveA said:

Could the total $$ saved by bringing in "cheaper options" for every single person that got fired this week amount to even $1 million?

Do you really think the budgetary concerns are THAT tight?

How much did they save last year?

[SteveA]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

How much did they save last year?

I didn't necessarily buy that last year was about money either.

It just seems absurd to worry about saving $30,000 here or thereby hiring a cheaper assistant of strength and conditioning while you have an 8 digit payroll.   It doesn't make logical sense.   I mean it cost us $25K to give Mac Sceroler a one week tryout and then send him back, right?   If that kind of money MATTERS, why take any Rule 5 players?  We tendered arbitration to Pedro Severino last year, doing that instead of signing a Caleb Joseph or someone like that for the veteran minimum probably cost us more than any savings we could have accrued on coaches both last year and this added together.   I find it hard to believe that those kind of decisions are a driving factor in these moves.   Elias is a smart person.   The Angelos brothers, while maybe not great baseball minds, are smart people.  I can't see them demanding those type of cost saving cuts when they will have such a miniscule effect on the bottom line.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, SteveA said:

I didn't necessarily buy that last year was about money either.

It just seems absurd to worry about saving $30,000 here or thereby hiring a cheaper assistant of strength and conditioning while you have an 8 digit payroll.   It doesn't make logical sense.   I mean it cost us $25K to give Mac Sceroler a one week tryout and then send him back, right?   If that kind of money MATTERS, why take any Rule 5 players?  We tendered arbitration to Pedro Severino last year, doing that instead of signing a Caleb Joseph or someone like that for the veteran minimum probably cost us more than any savings we could have accrued on coaches both last year and this added together.   I find it hard to believe that those kind of decisions are a driving factor in these moves.   Elias is a smart person.   The Angelos brothers, while maybe not great baseball minds, are smart people.  I can't see them demanding those type of cost saving cuts when they will have such a miniscule effect on the bottom line.

Could be more of a mindset thing?  I don't know but I don't see why folks decide this is the thing they are lying about.

 

[SteveA]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Could be more of a mindset thing?  I don't know but I don't see why folks decide this is the thing they are lying about.

 

Who is lying?   Who said it was about money last year, the Orioles?   I didn't think so, though perhaps I am misremembering.   I thought one of the fired people said they were told it was about money.   Saying you were fired due to money makes you look a lot better than saying they fired you because you did a poor job.   Someone who has just been let go is both emotionally in a bad place, often to the point of being angry and willing to badmouth the employer that let them go, and also motivated to paint themselves as positively as possible for future employment.

Yes, I have been concerned that they are THAT cheap, but I still find it hard to believe.   Just because it makes so little logical sense.

[Sports Guy]

38 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Could the total $$ saved by bringing in "cheaper options" for every single person that got fired this week amount to even $1 million?

Do you really think the budgetary concerns are THAT tight?

Yes I do…it played into all the decisions last year, including the broadcasters, for what I have heard.

[spiritof66]

14 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Could the total $$ saved by bringing in "cheaper options" for every single person that got fired this week amount to even $1 million?

Do you really think the budgetary concerns are THAT tight?

Other than Long, it seems likely that these decisions are just about saving money. Obviously, there may be other factors that those outside the team aren't aware of -- poor job performance, not getting along with players or manager or coaches, criticizing the team to outsiders (imagine that!). But three guys, and maybe more to come, all at once? 

I think, as has happened before, that John Angelos saw an opportunity to save another $100,000 or $200,000, or whatever it comes to, to enrich first his father, then his father's estate, and then him and his brother. At the same time, if the team is going to be sold in the short term, the price won't be affected ten cents by the fact that there are new, less experienced, lower-paid employees in these positions.

Unless there's other job -related stuff involved, I take this as confirmation that ownership is taking a very short-term, expense-item-by-expense-item approach to the Orioles, with a priority of squeezing down costs and maximizing profits a season at a time. It's nice to think that these savings will be poured back into improving the team in a year or two. I'm highly dubious about that, and since we won't know about the accumulation of these small amounts we'll probably never know. 

Of course, it would help if we could hear from the team's CEO once in a while about his plans for the team, including whether part of the team's strategy is to use recent seasons' ridiculously low major-league payrolls for active talent (that is, excluding the $$ owed to Davis, Cobb, et al.) to help the Orioles bid for high-priced free agents or trades for high-salaries players in a year or two. Some of you may take it on faith that that's the plan, but I'm not willing to do that.

[SteveA]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Yes I do…it played into all the decisions last year, including the broadcasters, for what I have heard.

So if you really believe they are quibbling about salary differences that in many cases amount to less than $100K for a dozen or so people, why do you even bother to participate in threads where we talk about potential free agent signings, even mid level ones?   I mean, if money is so tight, the notion of signing a Gray or EdRod for what it will take is way beyond any notion of reality.

Unless you somehow feel that player payroll is a different pot of money and they will spend millions there while pinching pennies in other departments.   And that just doesn't make sense to me.

Look, I see the same things.  Announcers (although Thorne is 73 and Hunter is 70 so those guys would likely have been gone fairly soon anyway, and we just had retirements of 2 70+ year olds in Manfra and Angel as well.  So an overhaul/youth movement was needed.   Now you can argue they went cheap but Brown was certainly an up and coming AAA announcer and we wouldn't be the first team that has gone that route).   And the coaching moves.   And even things like fewer concession options in the ballpark.   There certainly is an appearance of penny pinching going on.   But I still feel that it doesn't make a lot of sense for intelligent people to quibble over that kind of money, when the last minute negotiation to sign one free agent could result in an additional $5 million in salary commitment.   

If we sign no free agents at all for more than $1 or $2 million (and don't trade for guys making more than that), then that will lend credence to the argument.   But if we even do a modicum of payroll spending, that would so dwarf the savings in coaches and announcers that I find it hard to believe that ownership could really care about that stuff.

 

[Moose Milligan]

@SteveA, stop making sense.  

Listen, when you're a hammer, everything's a nail.  The Orioles are cheap anywhere/everywhere they can be.

[osfan83]

There may be a dictate to save in every area that has minimal impact on the field. Organizations are always looking to be more efficient. 

[Sports Guy]

43 minutes ago, SteveA said:

So if you really believe they are quibbling about salary differences that in many cases amount to less than $100K for a dozen or so people, why do you even bother to participate in threads where we talk about potential free agent signings, even mid level ones?   I mean, if money is so tight, the notion of signing a Gray or EdRod for what it will take is way beyond any notion of reality.

Unless you somehow feel that player payroll is a different pot of money and they will spend millions there while pinching pennies in other departments.   And that just doesn't make sense to me.

Look, I see the same things.  Announcers (although Thorne is 73 and Hunter is 70 so those guys would likely have been gone fairly soon anyway, and we just had retirements of 2 70+ year olds in Manfra and Angel as well.  So an overhaul/youth movement was needed.   Now you can argue they went cheap but Brown was certainly an up and coming AAA announcer and we wouldn't be the first team that has gone that route).   And the coaching moves.   And even things like fewer concession options in the ballpark.   There certainly is an appearance of penny pinching going on.   But I still feel that it doesn't make a lot of sense for intelligent people to quibble over that kind of money, when the last minute negotiation to sign one free agent could result in an additional $5 million in salary commitment.   

If we sign no free agents at all for more than $1 or $2 million (and don't trade for guys making more than that), then that will lend credence to the argument.   But if we even do a modicum of payroll spending, that would so dwarf the savings in coaches and announcers that I find it hard to believe that ownership could really care about that stuff.

 

Why do I participate?  Because I want to but thanks for asking.

All I can tell you is based off of what I have heard, these things mattered heading into this year.  Maybe that was because of the pandemic and nothing more.

I will say that I do expect them to spend some money this year but they won’t be after anyone that is actually good or some kind of a difference maker.  

[Dr. Unk]

8 hours ago, SteveA said:

Could the total $$ saved by bringing in "cheaper options" for every single person that got fired this week amount to even $1 million?

Do you really think the budgetary concerns are THAT tight?

I'm thinking it's O's being on the cheap again, but who knows.  Suddenly don't have a lot of faith in this great rebuild.