What is the real reason for our off season?

[SemperFi]

2 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

I'll go with #6: some other reason. I tried to explain my view of this in another thread. Here's a (believe it or not) shorter version.

The Angeloses know that the team will be sold shortly after Peter Angelos's death. I doubt that anyone still thinks MLB would approve a transfer of ownership to John and his brother Lou, as apparently provided for in Peter's will that he's now unable to change, to watch them fight each other for years, while the team, with no outside source of revenue and very limited resources after paying estate taxes, flounders along. (I think it's highly probable that in 2020 the Angeloses agreed with MLB to sell promptly after Peter dies, in exchange for MLB not forcing a sale (triggering an additional tax burden) when Georgia Angelos took control of the team in 2018. The Angeloses may have a very good, a pretty good, or no reliable estimate of when Peter will die. But he's 93 1/2, and the hiring of Goldman Sachs earlier this year to advise the Angeloses about a sale of the team suggests to me that they expect that to happen in the next year or two.

It's very likely that John Angelos has been advised, by Goldman and probably others) that buyer interest, and the purchase price for the Orioles, will be maximized by minimizing the team's future payroll commitments. A buyer will want to decide, with his or her management team that may or may not include Elias, who will be on the team five years from now, who will eat up large chunks of payroll for some years (possibly unproductively due to injury or a performance downturn) and who (at least if we're talking top free agents) the team will be wasting money on toward the back end of his contract.  John Angelos wants to show the world that he's an astute businessman, so he's pushed hard to maximize the sale price not just to put an extra $0 or $100 million in his pocket from the sale but to be recognized as a success at something for the first time in his life. The drive to minimize future payroll commitments has been a constant under John Angelos.

Of course, following that course, even more so following it rigidly, has been convenient for Angelos in that it's enabled him to keep a tight lid on payroll. But I think it's more about selling the team than about skimping on 2021-23 payroll. I believe John Angelos was (and is) perfectly willing to spend an additional $30 to $35 million, maybe more, on added payroll in 2023 (plus the increase from the maturation of team-controlled young talent). He probably would be willing to add something to 2024 payroll, to, but he'd have to like the deal or see it as adding a guy who would help the team a lot this year and not look a negative-value commitment in 2024. Unfortunately for Elias and the Orioles (and their fans), this off-season there wasn't and isn't difference-making veteran talent available, matching the Orioles' needs, on short-term contracts. (Backup catcher is an exception.) That's why Elias was left to sign Gibson, Frazier and Givens. He thought that was the best he could do without obligating the team past 2024, and he may well be right about that.

This could very well be the case but I'll add two points.  I don't think the type of 1 and 2 year contacts for pitchers as discussed here would have any material effect on the value of the team conversely if the team performs better revenue/value should increase making the team more valuable.  Secondly the tough thing for ownership then management is extending young players like Atlanta has done.  To my way of thinking this would make the Orioles much more attractive  but getting it done and budgeting for it is difficult.  Elias may budget for this but until it gets done it's a huge placeholder preventing him from making other moves.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, tntoriole said:

Houston model did not involve huge mega deal free agent signings.  Trades obtained pitching like Verlander and Cole. 
 

I have no idea what point it is you are trying to make.

Where did I say his risk aversion was confined to the free agent market?

The Astros took a risk when they traded for Verlander.  They took a risk when they extended Altuve.  They took a risk when they drafted Mark Appel.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I have no idea what point it is you are trying to make.

Where did I say his risk aversion was confined to the free agent market?

The Astros took a risk when they traded for Verlander.  They took a risk when they extended Altuve.  They took a risk when they drafted Mark Appel.

Astros also took on risk when they traded for Zack Greinke. 

[tntoriole]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I have no idea what point it is you are trying to make.

Where did I say his risk aversion was confined to the free agent market?

The Astros took a risk when they traded for Verlander.  They took a risk when they extended Altuve.  They took a risk when they drafted Mark Appel.

Sorry .. seemed like most of the focus about the offseason lack of activity has been the lack of free agent signings. 
But quite right .. trades also involve risk.  I think we could still see a major trade before spring training.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Astros also took on risk when they traded for Zack Greinke. 

Sure, I was trying to give one example in three different scenarios.

I even made sure to include a risk that ended poorly.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

3 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

Sorry .. seemed like most of the focus about the offseason lack of activity has been the lack of free agent signings. 
But quite right .. trades also involve risk.  I think we could still see a major trade before spring training.

I'm hoping this is the motivation behind the Frazier signing because with the current roster makeup I don't see the need for him. Trade a player or two then maybe there is a need for Frazier even if I don't like paying him $8M. 

[SemperFi]

33 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

San Diego is the 26th MLB market, by size.

Good point but they are 15th in revenue (2021), note that the Orioles are third from the bottom although that again is 2021, with a good opportunity to expand.

[SemperFi]

Just now, SemperFi said:

Good point but they are 15th in revenue (2021), note that the Orioles are third from the bottom although that again is 2021, with a good opportunity to expand.

Sorry, reference attached

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193645/revenue-of-major-league-baseball-teams-in-2010/

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, SemperFi said:

Good point but they are 15th in revenue (2021), note that the Orioles are third from the bottom although that again is 2021, with a good opportunity to expand.

I'm hardly surprised that a team making a concerted effort to win is bringing in more revenue than a slightly larger market team that has been actively tanking for years.

That's part of what is so insulting when Elias talked about how team payroll will go up after attendance goes up.

[tntoriole]

1 minute ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

I'm hoping this is the motivation behind the Frazier signing because with the current roster makeup I don't see the need for him. Trade a player or two then maybe there is a need for Frazier even if I don't like paying him $8M. 

Yes infielders or outfielders could be included in a deal. 

We went all through the Frazier argument in two other threads.  My view is he will contribute significantly more value than his 8 mil salary but this will have to be demonstrated on the field to change the opposing view. 


 

[Number5]

The only big-money guy I thought we might be in on was Rodon.  He seemed to be a perfect fit for both our roster and our budget.  It turns out that maybe that budget wasn't there.  We don't know.  I mentioned in another thread how I suspect that maybe we were in on him in a bigger way than we are aware of.  I know that Boras made some very positive comments about Elias' aggressiveness this off-season, and I'm thinking that something was driving that comment.  Rodon's comment about wanting to be a Yankee makes me think that other teams, including the Orioles, weren't really operating on a level playing field.

I'm not really sure who else we could have, or should have, signed for major bucks.  

As to the four guys we have added, I'm less upset than most.  Four solid pros and we didn't break the bank.  The team has improved, albeit not to a great degree.  The only one of the four moves I question is Frazier, as I questioned the need for another 2B.  The money and Frazier's skills aren't what concerned me, and I know about his versatility.

[bpilktree]

21 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I have no idea what point it is you are trying to make.

Where did I say his risk aversion was confined to the free agent market?

The Astros took a risk when they traded for Verlander.  They took a risk when they extended Altuve.  They took a risk when they drafted Mark Appel.

They traded for Verlander in the 2017 season.   They were the best team in the American League in that season before making the trade.  They signed Altuve in 2018 after he was an MVP in the season before(not much risk extending MVP) and had 2 years left.   We are not at that point in our rebuild and our players have not been as productive as those guys you mention so no need to compare what risks the Astros took during and after the 2017 season when they won 100+ games.  The Astros made some moves but very few if any of them was done before they were already a playoff team and competing for their division.  
 

I do think we need to be proactive in extensions in the next year or so as that is becoming more common but also do not think we are at the point to gamble on big trades or signings and based on Elias moves he is not ready yet to do that.  It may happen at some point in 2023 though.  

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, bpilktree said:

They traded for Verlander in the 2017 season.   They were the best team in the American League in that season before making the trade.  They signed Altuve in 2018 after he was an MVP in the season before(not much risk extending MVP) and had 2 years left.   We are not at that point in our rebuild and our players have not been as productive as those guys you mention so no need to compare what risks the Astros took during and after the 2017 season when they won 100+ games.  The Astros made some moves but very few if any of them was done before they were already a playoff team and competing for their division.  
 

I do think we need to be proactive in extensions in the next year or so as that is becoming more common but also do not think we are at the point to gamble on big trades or signings and based on Elias moves he is not ready yet to do that.  It may happen at some point in 2023 though.  

The Astros FIRST extended Altuve in 2013.

The 2013 Astros lost 111 games.

Good try? Tho.

[bpilktree]

37 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Astros also took on risk when they traded for Zack Greinke. 

Greinke was coming of finishing 4th in Cy Young, three straight all star appearances 5 in last 6 years and had ERa’s of 3.2, 3.21, and 2.90.  I am not sure there was much risk trading for him as good as he was pitching.  The Astros were also coming off back to back 100 win seasons when they traded for him midway through 2019.  They were the best team in baseball already when they traded for him.  

[Moose Milligan]

Wait wait wait! The off-season isn’t over yet, amirite?