The warning signs are there for the reading

[owknows]

30 minutes ago, waroriole said:

I don’t understand why adding SP by trade would be preferable. We have the salary room, especially for short term deals. Why give up assets when we don’t have to?

Are dollars not assets?

 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, owknows said:

Once again... it's like a scene from Moneyball.

 

Old Guys... Plaid Pants...  Making pronouncements about how teams HAVE to be run... cuz that's how we did it before... 

You do know that Moneyball team had Tejada and the big three pitchers.

All that stuff in Moneyball was filling out the roster stuff.  They also traded away Carlos Pena which was kinda questionable.

[24fps]

Pretty disheartening.  3/63 is on the expensive side for a team in the last stages of rebuilding, especially for a 34 year-old pitcher, but I thought Bassitt was a good fit and the O's could have absorbed that contract without too much risk.

I'm a little uncomfortable looking for omens in situations like this especially if it concerns betrayals of trust like concluding that the Angeloses have pulled the rug out from under Mike Elias after promising him the moon etc., etc...

Elias has a good group of people surrounding him.  If they start leaving for "promotions" in other organizations, then I'll be a lot more sympathetic to the Game of Thrones narrative in regard to the Angelos family.  But until there's a clearer understanding of the now multiple disappointments on the FA front I'm going to withhold judgement until after the 2023 trade deadline.  I think that's a reasonably patient position for a fan to take, but it sure is getting a hell of a lot more difficult at this point.

[owknows]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

You do know that Moneyball team had Tejada and the big three pitchers.

All that stuff in Moneyball was filling out the roster stuff.  They also traded away Carlos Pena which was kinda questionable.

I thought it was fairly obvious that I referenced Moneyball as an example of resistance to new thinking.

Not as an example of running a team.

[jrobb21613]

The marlins when they trade Lopez are going to get a hefty haul. His demand is skyrocketing with all these long lofty contracts. All your small & mid market teams will all be competing for his services driving up the price because they refuse or can't compete with the larger market clubs in free agency, but at the end  of the day he'll get traded to the  yankees or the dodgers of the world  because they will be more willing to part with their best prospects because their  not as dependent on them as say the orioles.

[waroriole]

5 minutes ago, owknows said:

Are dollars not assets?

 

Do you think dollars not spent this year will be applied towards the team in the future or go to the owner’s pockets?

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, owknows said:

I thought it was fairly obvious that I referenced Moneyball as an example of resistance to new thinking.

Not as an example of running a team.

Those guys are already gone.

They've been put out to pasture.

You are suggesting doing something other teams are already doing and suggesting it's some sea change.

I'm sure the Rays would prefer to not have to sign Zach Eflin.

[HakunaSakata]

2 minutes ago, jrobb21613 said:

The marlins when they trade Lopez are going to get a hefty haul. His demand is skyrocketing with all these long lofty contracts. All your small & mid market teams will all be competing for his services driving up the price because they refuse or can't compete with the larger market clubs in free agency, but at the end  of the day he'll get traded to the  yankees or the dodgers of the world  because they will be more willing to part with their best prospects because their  not as dependent on them as say the orioles.

Yep. If we were serious about addressing our pitching needs via trade then we should have made a play for Lopez long before all the high end FA pitchers signed. 

[OriolesMagic83]

I guess where I'm at as an O's fan, is that I'm hoping that when Peter dies, that MLB forces the sale of the O's.  Then finally the O's will have an owner who has winning as his #1 goal instead of pocketing millions.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, OriolesMagic83 said:

I guess where I'm at as an O's fan, is that I'm hoping that when Peter dies, that MLB forces the sale of the O's.  Then finally the O's will have an owner who has winning as his #1 goal instead of pocketing millions.

It's more likely to be the inheritance tax forcing the sale than MLB.

[owknows]

Just now, waroriole said:

Do you think dollars not spent this year will be applied towards the team in the future or go to the owner’s pockets?

My prescription was to offer early extensions to emerging talent.

I also don't really understand the default position being that owners are evil if they don't spend unnecessary money.

If they continue to put a bad product on the field, I'll be right there with you.

But this same family spent ridiculous money to put a BAD product on the field.

 

[owknows]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You are suggesting doing something other teams are already doing and suggesting it's some sea change.

 

No. I'm not.

As we discussed earlier.. the Rays are closest to doing what I advocate... but they still do things I'd suggest they not do.

[jrobb21613]

4 minutes ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

I guess where I'm at as an O's fan, is that I'm hoping that when Peter dies, that MLB forces the sale of the O's.  Then finally the O's will have an owner who has winning as his #1 goal instead of pocketing millions.

It wouldn't surprise me if they didn't already have a buyer lined up frankly I'd be more surprised if they didn't. 

[Bemorewins]

20 minutes ago, owknows said:

Gee, thanks

I suspect that if they make the playoffs every year without having multiple 250 million dollar players signed, their fans will love them all the more for it. I know I will.

You seem to be suggesting that you must either sign multiple big-contract FA's, or you're not "going for it"

I reject your false dichotomy.

 

That’s not what I am suggesting at all. I am expressing serious concern about the Orioles alienating the fans in the community/market.

I don’t want the team to be reckless and spend foolishly. But I do what them to spend when appropriate. IMO this offseason with the payroll being so low would have be wholly appropriate and would not have done long term harm or prevented us from resigning our homegrown stars.

We don’t have to take an extreme approach and I believe an absolutist position to team building is problematic. I feel like deciding not to participate in free agency (if indeed that is the franchise’s direction) will be just as bad as when we were refusing to participate in talent acquisition through the international market (in particular the Dominican Republic).

Lastly, we seem to be talking at or past one another at this point which really serves no purpose. I want the team to win a World Series by any means. If the budget/no free agent approach works, I will be as happy as anyone.

However, I am just very concerned about the organization willing to take the risk of alienating it’s fans when there appears to be a more pragmatic approach. Unless their primary goal is really to pocket profits with winning being secondary.

[Sports Guy]

25 minutes ago, Yardball85 said:

It's nothing personal.  I don't know you obviously.  I am just amazed that there is a fan out there that is saying what you are saying with a straight face.  Spend LESS in free agency than the Rays?  LOL 

Yea that was a head scratcher for sure