Are we ever going to spend some money?

[Frobby]

5 hours ago, wildcard said:

Just not as much offense  from 1B  as a playoff team needs.

You know that there are plenty of playoff teams with subpar offense at one position or another, including 1B.  Have you checked out the Astros at 1B?  The Guardians?  The Padres?

Obviously I would like to see Mountcastle hitting better.  For me, he’s a flawed, undisciplined, streaky hitter.  I agree with you that him hitting better would improve our playoff chances.  I’m just saying there’s no magic “playoff team” formula for any one position on the field.   Outscore your opponent is the only formula that matters. 

[deward]

11 hours ago, owknows said:

Stack the farm.

Graduate awesome players.

Play 'em for 5.

Trade 'em as they enter 6.

Re stock with the proceeds.

Keep the conveyor belt filled with awesome players.

Win championships.

Profit.

Baseball is a business.

The objective of business is to make money.

As much money as possible.

The objective of a healthy baseball team is to win championships and make as much money as possible.

If a team can develop a formula that allows them to put an exceptional team on the field every year, contending for championships, and making as much money as they can... that is what they should do.

Despite your suggestion to the contrary... there is nothing wrong with a baseball team owner making as much money as they possibly can, while also fielding an exceptional team. In fact, it should be the objective of every team.

Until recently, the baseball model seemed to be.... spend obscene amounts of money wastefully by buying up every high value player that hits the market, driving player prices (and thus fan prices) through the roof. This strategy has been employed for decades by NY, and California teams, and a few big city flyover teams.

A new strategy seems to be emerging pioneered by Oakland and Tampa, where stocking the farm, getting the most out of control years, trading while still valuable, and restocking the farm. This significantly lowers the cost of putting a winning product on the field, and therefore enhances profit. These teams have however, signed the occasional big contract player.

An advance on that strategy may be coming. From the Orioles. Where monster contracts are proven unnecessary to put a consistent contender on the field. And in general the team strives to get the most value out of a players productive years, and cashes in the downside years for new prospects. All while still maximizing profit and maintaining a healthy business. If this proves to be their pursuit, I wish them well.

This doesn't seem to sit well with folks like you... who have a palpable disgust for the profit motive despite it having provided every good thing you enjoy in your life. But this sentiment seems to be quite common these days.

Allow me to present you with a thought exercise - if the O's figured a strategy wherein they replaced the entire 25 man roster every season, but were a consistent contender by doing so, would you be on board as a fan? Would you enjoy watching that team, with 100% turnover year after year? Perhaps you would, if you have no attachment or rooting interest in any individual player, but I suspect most fans would hate that. I know I would. Rooting for a sports team is an inherently emotional experience. Fan get invested in the players they like. My O's fandom wouldn't be nearly the same if I hadn't grown up watching Cal. I'm not interested in baseball as sterile, clinical business enterprise. I don't care about the owner's profit margin, not even a little. And I would argue that the lack of stars to root for a long-term basis, and the feeling that their teams are just feeder programs for richer clubs, is the biggest reason Tampa and Oakland don't draw fans, no matter how many games they win.

[Orioles0615]

21 hours ago, dzorange said:

Imagine if the Orioles spent money this past offseason and we weren’t able to see the development of guys like Hays, Santander, Mateo, Urias, McKenna, Bautista, Lopez, Perez, Kremer, etc.

Odor, the one position player they did sign, people are clamoring to he benched or DFA’d.

The plan wasn’t for the O’s to be competitive this season and probably even next season. Instead, they’ve made good decisions and they’ve also had the ability to throw guys like Kremer and Bradish out there to see what they’ve got.

I’d love for the O’s to spend money this offseason, but only if it’s in a way that helps us for the 2024 and 2025 seasons. We can’t jeopardize future years to try to win now, when we still aren’t fully set up to win now.

 

Can’t jeopardize future years to try to win now? 
 

ah nothing like the backwards age old Orioles logic of being 2 years away from being 2 years away. After all the main goal is to have a top farm system 

[Can_of_corn]

10 hours ago, deward said:

Allow me to present you with a thought exercise - if the O's figured a strategy wherein they replaced the entire 25 man roster every season, but were a consistent contender by doing so, would you be on board as a fan? Would you enjoy watching that team, with 100% turnover year after year? Perhaps you would, if you have no attachment or rooting interest in any individual player, but I suspect most fans would hate that. I know I would. Rooting for a sports team is an inherently emotional experience. Fan get invested in the players they like. My O's fandom wouldn't be nearly the same if I hadn't grown up watching Cal. I'm not interested in baseball as sterile, clinical business enterprise. I don't care about the owner's profit margin, not even a little. And I would argue that the lack of stars to root for a long-term basis, and the feeling that their teams are just feeder programs for richer clubs, is the biggest reason Tampa and Oakland don't draw fans, no matter how many games they win.

As someone that lives near Tampa I would say you are wrong.

 

[DrungoHazewood]

12 hours ago, deward said:

Allow me to present you with a thought exercise - if the O's figured a strategy wherein they replaced the entire 25 man roster every season, but were a consistent contender by doing so, would you be on board as a fan? Would you enjoy watching that team, with 100% turnover year after year? Perhaps you would, if you have no attachment or rooting interest in any individual player, but I suspect most fans would hate that. I know I would. Rooting for a sports team is an inherently emotional experience. Fan get invested in the players they like. My O's fandom wouldn't be nearly the same if I hadn't grown up watching Cal. I'm not interested in baseball as sterile, clinical business enterprise. I don't care about the owner's profit margin, not even a little. And I would argue that the lack of stars to root for a long-term basis, and the feeling that their teams are just feeder programs for richer clubs, is the biggest reason Tampa and Oakland don't draw fans, no matter how many games they win.

Of course the Orioles aren't going to get into a position where they're trading everyone all the time.  Even the Rays, with their microscopic attendance and a stoic approach to players, still sign players to long-term deals.  They signed Longoria to a big deal, bought out arb/free agency and extended Archer and Lowe, signed Kiermaier. Kiermaier has been on the Rays for 10 years.

The Orioles are probably not going to be a team that resigns or extends all of their home-grown stars, but they're also unlikely to be some kind of more transactional Tampa Bay.  If Gunnar and Adley and others are willing to entertain deals buying out arb and early free agency years I see little reason to think Elias wouldn't pursue that.

Cue @Can_of_corn reminding us that the Angeloses don't allow us to enjoy life, and most of what I just wrote is rank speculation informed by a naïve twinkle of optimism.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Orioles0615 said:

Can’t jeopardize future years to try to win now? 
 

ah nothing like the backwards age old Orioles logic of being 2 years away from being 2 years away. After all the main goal is to have a top farm system 

Obviously the 2023 Orioles will be in a position to press hard for current wins.  But the mid-range projections for the '22 team was something like 65 wins.  If anyone criticizes Elias for not going for it last winter they're badly mistaken.

[geschinger]

4 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

The Orioles are probably not going to be a team that resigns or extends all of their home-grown stars, but they're also unlikely to be some kind of more transactional Tampa Bay.  If Gunnar and Adley and others are willing to entertain deals buying out arb and early free agency years I see little reason to think Elias wouldn't pursue that.

I think (hope) they'll be like Houston.  Be willing to sign select home grown stars (Altuve) but be perfectly willing to let others walk because they have the conveyor belt of talent in the minors (let Correa walk, slide Pena in).  I hope they are never in a position where keeping homegrown stars leads to a roster with multiple formerly good mid 30s players clogging the roster.

[Frobby]

12 hours ago, deward said:

Allow me to present you with a thought exercise - if the O's figured a strategy wherein they replaced the entire 25 man roster every season, but were a consistent contender by doing so, would you be on board as a fan? Would you enjoy watching that team, with 100% turnover year after year? Perhaps you would, if you have no attachment or rooting interest in any individual player, but I suspect most fans would hate that. I know I would. Rooting for a sports team is an inherently emotional experience. Fan get invested in the players they like. My O's fandom wouldn't be nearly the same if I hadn't grown up watching Cal. I'm not interested in baseball as sterile, clinical business enterprise. I don't care about the owner's profit margin, not even a little. And I would argue that the lack of stars to root for a long-term basis, and the feeling that their teams are just feeder programs for richer clubs, is the biggest reason Tampa and Oakland don't draw fans, no matter how many games they win.

I have some experience with this, as a Duke alum and basketball fan.  Over the last 25 years, Duke has been extremely successful, but they’ve transitioned from being a team where most star players stayed all four years to a team that changes its top players annually.   It was WAY more enjoyable when the players stuck around and fans got to watch them develop and mature.  So no, I would not like a system where the team turned over every year, even if they won.  

Now, baseball is not in such an extreme position.   If players frequently get traded away after 4-5 years, I can live with that if it helps the team win on a sustained basis rather than having huge peaks and valleys.  
 

[DrungoHazewood]

6 minutes ago, geschinger said:

I think (hope) they'll be like Houston.  Be willing to sign select home grown stars (Altuve) but be perfectly willing to let others walk because they have the conveyor belt of talent in the minors (let Correa walk, slide Pena in).  I hope they are never in a position where keeping homegrown stars leads to a roster with multiple formerly good mid 30s players clogging the roster.

Just avoid being the Phillies of 10 or 12 years ago, when they started handing out big extensions to everyone who played on their World Series teams.  Need to let Nick Markakis walk, but eventually get him back for the Orioles HOF ceremony.

[DrungoHazewood]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I have some experience with this, as a Duke alum and basketball fan.  Over the last 25 years, Duke has been extremely successful, but they’ve transitioned from being a team where most star players stayed all four years to a team that changes its top players annually.   It was WAY more enjoyable when the players stuck around and fans got to watch them develop and mature.  So no, I would not like a system where the team turned over every year, even if they won.  

Now, baseball is not in such an extreme position.   If players frequently get traded away after 4-5 years, I can live with that if it helps the team win on a sustained basis rather than having huge peaks and valleys.  

With the liberalized transfer rules NCAA sports are moving towards a kind of extreme all-laundry model.  You have no idea who is on the team from year-to-year so you're really just rooting for the school.  Or the coach?  Who roots for the coach?

Essentially every player is on a one-year contract all the time, every school is trying to get good players to transfer in, and every good player wants to leave as soon as the pros want them. Bench players are the only ones likely to stay around for four years.

I get that it was sometimes unfair to tie a kid to a school if he got into a situation he didn't like.  But as a compelling sports league the current setup is clearly inferior to 10 or 20 years ago.  Especially with the Big 10 and SEC moving hard to become two hyperconferences aligned to maximize revenues and markets at the expense of more than a century of rivalries and history.

Maybe Virginia Tech will do okay in a new ACC that's us, Wake, NC State, UVA, Syracuse... uhh... VCU, Coastal Carolina... whatever.  Can't we just go back to the Metro Conference or the Big East or something that was fun?

[Sports Guy]

27 minutes ago, geschinger said:

I think (hope) they'll be like Houston.  Be willing to sign select home grown stars (Altuve) but be perfectly willing to let others walk because they have the conveyor belt of talent in the minors (let Correa walk, slide Pena in).  I hope they are never in a position where keeping homegrown stars leads to a roster with multiple formerly good mid 30s players clogging the roster.

Yep.  Houston is really the team to look at.  They are essentially the hybrid of Tampa and NY.  They don’t spend to the Yankees/Dodgers level but they spend enough and do a great job of drafting and developing.

Of course, they tried to keep Correa but overall, it seems like the always make the right decision.

[geschinger]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Yep.  Houston is really the team to look at.  They are essentially the hybrid of Tampa and NY.  They don’t spend to the Yankees/Dodgers level but they spend enough and do a great job of drafting and developing.

Of course, they tried to keep Correa but overall, it seems like the always make the right decision.

Not sure it was a serious attempt to keep him considering his agent.  Their max offer was reported at 5/160.  

[Just Regular]

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

With the liberalized transfer rules NCAA sports are moving towards a kind of extreme all-laundry model.  You have no idea who is on the team from year-to-year so you're really just rooting for the school.  Or the coach?  Who roots for the coach?

Since parenthood, I basically only get to watch in a college football season the semifinals and final.     But last year or the year before, I swear I heard Herbstreit say somebody on Georgia was transferring to Alabama, or vice versa, and it kind of blew my mind.

Michael Vick would get snapped up by the Yankees these days, I guess.

On the other hand, I suppose in concept it introduces Americans to dynamic promotion-relegation type scenarios.   

Mike Elias must look at Nick Saban's pipeline with envy...is everyone on every team just trying out for Alabama?

Edited August 29, 2022 by Just Regular

[Sports Guy]

21 minutes ago, geschinger said:

Not sure it was a serious attempt to keep him considering his agent.  Their max offer was reported at 5/160.  

Well that is more than he signed for and he certainly could have signed the deal.

That said, I do agree that they probably could have pushed harder if they wanted.

[geschinger]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well that is more than he signed for and he certainly could have signed the deal.

That said, I do agree that they probably could have pushed harder if they wanted.

Technically yes, but the reason he signed the deal he did was to give Boras another shot next year with a full offseason to shop him around in FA. 

A deal that locked him up for age 27-31 with no commitments past that would have been a homerun for the Astros.  Especially when the last two years are only $55m more than the Twins offered (if for some reason he stays) for 3.