In this century, has there been a duller team to follow in the offseason than the Orioles?

[Pickles]

Twins?

[Roll Tide]

There have been other teams but the Orioles are definitely the worst team in baseball since Peter got cheap after Albert Belle.

[terpoh]

41 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Twins?

Signing Correa, albeit to a short term deal, is more exciting than anything we've done outside of the Bedard trade and the Tejada deal.

[Pickles]

2 minutes ago, terpoh said:

Signing Correa, albeit to a short term deal, is more exciting than anything we've done outside of the Bedard trade and the Tejada deal.

Exactly.  We've done two things more exciting than anything they've done.  If it had been a long-term deal I would say differently.  They traded Johan Santana one year.

So maybe they're about on our level.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Exactly.  We've done two things more exciting than anything they've done.  If it had been a long-term deal I would say differently.  They traded Johan Santana one year.

So maybe they're about on our level.

Back in 2001 they were voted off the Island by MLB.  That's pretty exciting.

Edited December 16, 2022 by Can_of_corn

[Too Tall]

Until recently, I think the word I'd choose is Pathetic rather than Dull. There were the years when we worried what Peter would do to mess it up and he generally didn't disappoint. There were the recent years when we would guess how many games we'd lose over 100 because we chose to "tank" to start over from total mismanagement. My favorite was the year Dan danced with Toronto and the operational fall out from that. Then there were all the Brady guessing games. What was his role - what was his influence? Or how about - can we buy Chris off? Following this team for much of this century has been like being addicted to "Stranger Things!" Regardless, in both cases, I'm trying to make it to the next season!

[JR Oriole]

I remember being so excited when the Os signed Alomar in late 1995.  Of the insanely deep and talented Jays title teams, he was the great player you loved to hate.  I was super excited to get him on our team and that (along with the 5 straight shutouts to end 1995 and just the sheer volume of talent we had on the roster) made me really excited about the upcoming season.  But that was a very long time ago.  

[G54377]

Hey now, we signed Ubaldo Jimenez once. 

[oriolediehard]

I hope the ownership didn't hire Elias to spend as low as possible to fool the fans that they are trying to improve the O's?  I am disappointed that the O's didn't sign one premiere FA that was promised by Elias. I want to believe that Elias's goal is to get a strong farm system. I guess I am spoiled that the O's improved so much and I want more.

[Legend_Of_Joey]

I really wonder at times if the Angelo’s are like parents to the GM’s.

”Here’s 50 million. Go to the store and pick up some free agents. You can keep the change.”

[jrobb21613]

It sure has been depressing. I mean you would think ownership after seeing how close we are to being serious contenders would be willing to make some financial long term commitments to a couple guys that would more competitive and help close the gap between us and other teams. You’d think they’d want to garner some excitement to generate more revenue by putting more butts in the seats and selling more merchandise. Instead we get remarks from ownership stating they’ll spend more wants there more butts in the seats. 
 

I think the 90’s with signing guys like Alamar, Palmerio Tejeda etc. The Bedard Trade it seemed like Angelos was more committed to fielding a winning baseball club than he is today. 
 

Personally I’m of the thinking their intentionally keeping payroll low and don’t want to add any major liabilities because the sons plan on selling the team as soon as Peter dies. 

[Frobby]

22 hours ago, jrobb21613 said:

Personally I’m of the thinking their intentionally keeping payroll low and don’t want to add any major liabilities because the sons plan on selling the team as soon as Peter dies. 

I hear this logic from time to time but it makes little sense to me.   If I’m a buyer, I’d rather buy a good team that fans are excited to see and is on the rise, than a team that’s stagnating and has tepid fan interest.   To me, moves that point the team in the right direction enhance its value, rather than detracting from it.   

Bad contracts like Chris Davis’ hurt the value of the team.  That’s a liability.   Decent contracts for good players don’t hurt the value of the franchise.   

Also, nobody knows how long Peter Angelos will live.   He could die next week or live another 5+ years.   Planning team strategy around his death is not prudent.  

 

[HakunaSakata]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I hear this logic from time to time but it makes little sense to me.   If I’m a buyer, I’d rather buy a good team that fans are excited to see and is on the rise, than a team that’s stagnating and has tepid fan interest.   To me, moves that point the team in the right direction enhance its value, rather than detracting from it.   

Bad contracts like Chris Davis’ hurt the value of the team.  That’s a liability.   Decent contracts for good players don’t hurt the value of the franchise.   

Also, nobody knows how long Peter Angelos will live.   He could die next week or live another 5+ years.   Planning team strategy around his death is not prudent.  

 

I think it's more about long term contracts, which might be unappealing to a potential buyer. That excuse doesn't apply to players like Verlander and Bassitt who signed relatively short term deals  though so it might be a combination of strategy and just general cheapness. 

[Aristotelian]

On 12/16/2022 at 4:33 PM, G54377 said:

Hey now, we signed Ubaldo Jimenez once. 

And extended Chris Davis with a big time wow offer. 

 

10 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I hear this logic from time to time but it makes little sense to me.   If I’m a buyer, I’d rather buy a good team that fans are excited to see and is on the rise, than a team that’s stagnating and has tepid fan interest.   To me, moves that point the team in the right direction enhance its value, rather than detracting from it.   

Bad contracts like Chris Davis’ hurt the value of the team.  That’s a liability.   Decent contracts for good players don’t hurt the value of the franchise.   

Also, nobody knows how long Peter Angelos will live.   He could die next week or live another 5+ years.   Planning team strategy around his death is not prudent.  

 

It's not that a "good contract" hurts the value of the team. On paper, the value of the player cancels out the liability owes. However, it does commit the team to a certain player and strategic path. A new ownership might want the freedom to choose the players they want to build around. As a new owner, would you want to be committed to Rodon for 6 years at $27M AAV, or would you rather have $27M more to spend. I'd rather be able to start off with a big bang and announce my guy that I'm building around. And of course, a "good contract" always has the risk of becoming bad between now and when the team is sold, whereas the only risk of no contract is opportunity cost.