So...uh, when does free agency start?

[owknows]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Sure?

No one is suggesting differently over the long term.

But with this low a payroll and the financial flexibility it provides now would be the time to use free agents to supplement the core.

If you are not willing to do it now you should just eliminate it from you options as an avenue for obtaining difference making level of talent.

If you can build everything you need via draft, non-market acquisitions, and trade... why would you feel compelled to enter the Free Agent market simply because you have a low payroll? I think the Orioles already have difference making talent working their way through the organization. So much of it in fact... that they can afford to trade some of it away for the talent they need at the ML level today...  and also... trade for some future prospects to put back onto the start of the conveyor belt.

I'll admit to some bias here, as I think free agent bidding insanity has damaged the game... making it unapproachable to the working man... It used to be that going to a ballgame was like going to the movies... Now it's like going to a Broadway play and sitting in the front row.

And the most common response to this observation is... well... they have the revenue... why not spend on free agents? But it's a chicken or egg problem.... Are the multi-hundred million dollar contracts driving the need to squeeze revenue...? or is the surplus revenue driving the inflation of player salary. Whichever it is... I think it's unhealthy.

And I've been encouraged by some positive signs that lead me to believe that this problem can be overcome. Analytics... strategic decision-making.... the Tampa Bay model... all are encouraging signs. But I think more can be done. And I think that the Orioles are on the leading edge of that trend.. or at least have the potential to be. Instead of vomiting out money to buy the players that other teams have developed.. they are seriously, methodically, and painfully developing their own. And it's paying the dividends that it ought to.

I'm convinced that a well-run organization that seeds their farm with several drafts of high picks... does a studious job in Latin America... makes good choices in Rule 5 and on the waiver wire.. trades well... and coaches well... can sustain a decade-long dynasty in Major League Baseball. Without ever dipping a toe in the deep end of the FA pool. I know that isn't their stated intent... but I'd like to see them try. THAT would be something to root for... Something different... Something amazing.

Baseball is an amazing game..  with an allure that involves more than what happens on the field. I think clubs that buy their roster and don't care how many mistakes they make have polluted the game. I realize this isn't a popular opinion...  particularly during Free Agency... But I've never been one for popular positions.

 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, owknows said:

If you can build everything you need via draft, non-market acquisitions, and trade... why would you feel compelled to enter the Free Agent market simply because you have a low payroll? I think the Orioles already have difference making talent working their way through the organization. So much of it in fact... that they can afford to trade some of it away for the talent they need at the ML level today...  and also... trade for some future prospects to put back onto the start of the conveyor belt.

I'll admit to some bias here, as I think free agent bidding insanity has damaged the game... making it unapproachable to the working man... It used to be that going to a ballgame was like going to the movies... Now it's like going to a Broadway play and sitting in the front row.

And the most common response to this observation is... well... they have the revenue... why not spend on free agents? But it's a chicken or egg problem.... Are the multi-hundred million dollar contracts driving the need to squeeze revenue...? or is the surplus revenue driving the inflation of player salary. Whichever it is... I think it's unhealthy.

And I've been encouraged by some positive signs that lead me to believe that this problem can be overcome. Analytics... strategic decision-making.... the Tampa Bay model... all are encouraging signs. But I think more can be done. And I think that the Orioles are on the leading edge of that trend.. or at least have the potential to be. Instead of vomiting out money to buy the players that other teams have developed.. they are seriously, methodically, and painfully developing their own. And it's paying the dividends that it ought to.

I'm convinced that a well-run organization that seeds their farm with several drafts of high picks... does a studious job in Latin America... makes good choices in Rule 5 and on the waiver wire.. trades well... and coaches well... can sustain a decade-long dynasty in Major League Baseball. Without ever dipping a toe in the deep end of the FA pool. I know that isn't their stated intent... but I'd like to see them try. THAT would be something to root for... Something different... Something amazing.

Baseball is an amazing game..  with an allure that involves more than what happens on the field. I think clubs that buy their roster and don't care how many mistakes they make have polluted the game. I realize this isn't a popular opinion...  particularly during Free Agency... But I've never been one for popular positions.

 

Why?

Because you aren't going to be able to do everything with the draft and the cost in money for free agents could very well be less than the cost in talent to acquire someone in trade, particularly when the players being traded for might already be making a substantial amount of money.

To ignore the free agent market almost entirely makes as much strategic sense as the O's almost enticingly ignoring the International market.

If other teams are using every avenue for adding talent and you are choosing to ignore one of those avenues you are putting yourself at a disadvantage.

 

[owknows]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Why?

Because you aren't going to be able to do everything with the draft and the cost in money for free agents could very well be less than the cost in talent to acquire someone in trade, particularly when the players being traded for might already be making a substantial amount of money.

To ignore the free agent market almost entirely makes as much strategic sense as the O's almost enticingly ignoring the International market.

If other teams are using every avenue for adding talent and you are choosing to ignore one of those avenues you are putting yourself at a disadvantage.

 

I don't think it necessary to ignore the FA market to adopt this as a winning strategy.

I think however, that it is beneficial to put Free Agency last in your team-building priority list... and to stay away from high-year high-dollar contracts...  which I think are unhealthy for the sport's future.

Any small market team has been put at a disadvantage already (even with overt attempts like revenue sharing and luxury taxes that are supposed to help ease that disadvantage). What we're discussing here is one possibly way that teams might overcome that advantage with careful strategic thinking rather than brute force dollars.

[Can_of_corn]

10 minutes ago, owknows said:

I don't think it necessary to ignore the FA market to adopt this as a winning strategy.

I think however, that it is beneficial to put Free Agency last in your team-building priority list... and to stay away from high-year high-dollar contracts...  which I think are unhealthy for the sport's future.

Any small market team has been put at a disadvantage already (even with overt attempts like revenue sharing and luxury taxes that are supposed to help ease that disadvantage). What we're discussing here is one possibly way that teams might overcome that advantage with careful strategic thinking rather than brute force dollars.

How is it unhealthy for the sport's future?

Any issues baseball has have nothing to do owners paying players.

Small market teams are always going to be at a disadvantage.  That is unavoidable.  In the NBA for instance you have a cap and revenue sharing.  A team like the Lakers still has an advantage over a team like the Wizards.  All things being equal a player isn't going to pick Baltimore over a larger market.  Why would they?  No point crying about it.

[owknows]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

How is it unhealthy for the sport's future?

Any issues baseball has have nothing to do owners paying players.

Small market teams are always going to be at a disadvantage.  That is unavoidable.  In the NBA for instance you have a cap and revenue sharing.  A team like the Lakers still has an advantage over a team like the Wizards.  All things being equal a player isn't going to pick Baltimore over a larger market.  Why would they?  No point crying about it.

As I had stated earlier, I think that pricing Joe Lunchbox out of the baseball entertainment dollar is what is unhealthy for the sport's future.  And any suggestion that player salary and the cost of attending an MLB ball game are not heavily interdependent is being willfully blind to the correlation and the causation. Teams chase revenue. Success drives revenue. Teams chase success by attempting to buy it through insane free agency. The purchase price is passed along to consumers in the form of ticket, concession, memorabilia, and merch prices... in addition to broadcast rights prices... which fuels the next round of spending.

You can argue chicken or egg if you want to... but the price of Baseball as entertainment has explosively outpaced inflation... making it unavailable to all but the most successful. Particularly when viewed over the course of a 162 game season. Going to a baseball game used to be like going to the movies. Now it's like going to a Broadway Show... in a limo.

You're right... there's no use in crying about.

But I'm not suggesting crying about it. I'm suggesting a way to succeed without participating in it... And one which could have an infectiously positive impact on the future of the game.

[Frobby]

59 minutes ago, owknows said:

If you can build everything you need via draft, non-market acquisitions, and trade... why would you feel compelled to enter the Free Agent market simply because you have a low payroll?

What do you mean by “non-market acquisitions?”  Are you talking about the waiver wire and Rule 5?

I think the premise of your question, “if you can build everything you need…” is probably unrealistic.   Obviously the team would like to build everything it needs as cost-efficiently as possible.   But sometimes, the need is best met on the free agent market.   It’s for Elias to determine when that’s so.   

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, owknows said:

As I had stated earlier, I think that pricing Joe Lunchbox out of the baseball entertainment dollar is what is unhealthy for the sport's future.  And any suggestion that player salary and the cost of attending an MLB ball game are not heavily interdependent is being willfully blind to the correlation and the causation. Teams chase revenue. Success drives revenue. Teams chase success by attempting to buy it through insane free agency. The purchase price is passed along to consumers in the form of ticket, concession, memorabilia, and merch prices... in addition to broadcast rights prices... which fuels the next round of spending.

You can argue chicken or egg if you want to... but the price of Baseball as entertainment has explosively outpaced inflation... making it unavailable to all but the most successful. Particularly when viewed over the course of a 162 game season. Going to a baseball game used to be like going to the movies. Now it's like going to a Broadway Show... in a limo.

You're right... there's no use in crying about.

But I'm not suggesting crying about it. I'm suggesting a way to succeed without participating in it... And one which could have an infectiously positive impact on the future of the game.

I think owners charge what they think they can get away with for tickets and if payroll were to suddenly go down by 20% we would not see a corresponding drop in ticket prices.

I also don't think general admission ticket prices is what is keeping Joe Lunchbox away from the ballpark.

Every dollar that doesn't go to players is just going to go to owners.  Thinking anything else is being willfully blind to our economic reality.

[owknows]

Just now, Frobby said:

What do you mean by “non-market acquisitions?”  Are you talking about the waiver wire and Rule 5?

I think the premise of your question, “if you can build everything you need…” is probably unrealistic.   Obviously the team would like to build everything it needs as cost-efficiently as possible.   But sometimes, the need is best met on the free agent market.   It’s for Elias to determine when that’s so.   

Yes... I was speaking of waiver, rule 5, and maybe I'd lump in Latin American market with it's minimalist investment lottery ticket structure..... while conceding it is a market.

And yes of course I understand how the game is currently played... and how free agency is currently employed... and that free agency is now a common part of transactional baseball.. and that Elias is likely to employ free agency.

I'm simply...

a: Hoping that he plays it to the minimal degree possible... and

b: Postulating whether it is necessary at all, if you start with the number one farm in baseball, and you make great decisions...

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, owknows said:

As I had stated earlier, I think that pricing Joe Lunchbox out of the baseball entertainment dollar is what is unhealthy for the sport's future…You can argue chicken or egg if you want to... but the price of Baseball as entertainment has explosively outpaced inflation... making it unavailable to all but the most successful. Particularly when viewed over the course of a 162 game season. Going to a baseball game used to be like going to the movies. Now it's like going to a Broadway Show... in a limo.

That’s an absurd exaggeration.  The average price of a ticket to an Orioles game is $30, and it’s very easy to go to games for far less money than that if you are budget-conscious.  

[owknows]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think owners charge what they think they can get away with for tickets and if payroll were to suddenly go down by 20% we would not see a corresponding drop in ticket prices.

I also don't think general admission ticket prices is what is keeping Joe Lunchbox away from the ballpark.

Every dollar that doesn't go to players is just going to go to owners.  Thinking anything else is being willfully blind to our economic reality.

I think that general admission prices... entitled overpaid obnoxious players and owners... the expectation of inexpensive or free entertainment on the internet and television... the general trend of individuals toward a "virtual" rather than an "in-person" lifestyle fostered by technology... Increasingly short attention spans coupled with and increasing need for instant gratification... the increasingly dangerous environment of the cities in which most sports complexes are located.. and the unwholesome things that are likely to be encountered by your family when going to and from the ballpark.... are conspiring to keep Joe Lunchbox (and his kids) away from the ballpark.

Baseball, and in fact all professional sport is going to undergo a fiscal contraction at some point... for these and other reasons. To suggest that every dollar that doesn't go to the players will go to the owners doesn't really contemplate the fact that the dollar pool might eventually contract due to forces which are in some cases preventable.. and in other cases not.

[interloper]

7 minutes ago, Frobby said:

That’s an absurd exaggeration.  The average price of a ticket to an Orioles game is $30, and it’s very easy to go to games for far less money than that if you are budget-conscious.  

No lie, I sat dead center front row right behind Adley for $50 last season. My buddy from Boston nearly fainted when I told him that. 

[owknows]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

That’s an absurd exaggeration.  The average price of a ticket to an Orioles game is $30, and it’s very easy to go to games for far less money than that if you are budget-conscious.  

It is neither absurd, nor exaggeration.

There is a metric called the Fan Cost Index that seeks to calculate the cost of a sporting event for a family of four including tickets, food, drink, etc...

The average cost for an MLB ballgame last year was about $250

https://twitter.com/fancostindex

 

[interloper]

1 hour ago, owknows said:

I don't think it necessary to ignore the FA market to adopt this as a winning strategy.

I think however, that it is beneficial to put Free Agency last in your team-building priority list... and to stay away from high-year high-dollar contracts...  which I think are unhealthy for the sport's future.

Any small market team has been put at a disadvantage already (even with overt attempts like revenue sharing and luxury taxes that are supposed to help ease that disadvantage). What we're discussing here is one possibly way that teams might overcome that advantage with careful strategic thinking rather than brute force dollars.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, owknows said:

It is neither absurd, nor exaggeration.

There is a metric called the Fan Cost Index that seeks to calculate the cost of a sporting event for a family of four including tickets, food, drink, etc...

The average cost for an MLB ballgame last year was about $250

https://twitter.com/fancostindex

 

I have never in my life spent more than 4 dollars on food or drink at a baseball game.  I never ate or drank at a game when I went as a child.  If Joe Lunchbox wants to do so he can, but much more affordable options exist.

[owknows]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

I have never in my life spent more than 4 dollars on food or drink at a baseball game.  I never ate or drank at a game when I went as a child. 

You're not one of those guys that walked 10 miles to school every day without shoes are you?