For The Times they are a'Changin

[owknows]

1 minute ago, Bemorewins said:

I missed that discussion... But out of curiosity are you advocating that the Orioles continue no spending now? As in don't acquire better starting pitching? Don't extend Adley or any other young players who produce?

I believe that it is possible to put together a winning club in perpetuity, by drafting well, solid international presence, making sound decisions regarding early re-signing, and being willing to let go of players that will be out of your price range in later arb years in order to restock and spackle weaknesses in the farm.

I don't think it is necessary or beneficial to clamor for a chance to pay $250 million for ten years for anybody.

I don't think it is beneficial to even pay $100 million for ten years for anybody.

If you can extend Adley now... for a healthy discount... you do it.. otherwise you resign yourself to the fact that you're a small market team.. and you're going to have to trade him for farm stock while he still has some control.

[Going Underground]

4 minutes ago, owknows said:

Yeah... I think I've acknowledged that it's pretty early in the initial post, and several times thereafter.

Yes,the Orioles right now on beating up on the bad teams like good teams should.After the Kansas City series ,the schedule gets tougher. After the All -Star break the Orioles have a really tough two and a half weeks stretch on paper.  Who knows maybe the Sunday series in May in Puttsburgh will be a World Series preview We are not family two.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, geschinger said:

Not true, there are not plenty of teams at the bottom of the draft adding anywhere near the quantity and quality of talent the Orioles have added via the amateur draft the last couple of years  Depending on the list - somewhere 6 or 7 MLB top 100 prospects from those amateur drafts not to mention another 2 - Adley and Gunnar in Baltimore from recent amateur drafts. 

 

It is true. There are several teams that win year in and year out and still put out very good farm systems. 
 

You don’t need to tank for 4-5 years to do it.

[geschinger]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

They need to spend 130-150M. No “need” to go higher than that unless it’s an off year where it’s higher because of a bunch of guys at the end of arbitration or something like that.

Agree completely and if they are winning it can average at the higher end of that range assuming attendance increases.  

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, owknows said:

I believe that it is possible to put together a winning club in perpetuity, by drafting well, solid international presence, making sound decisions regarding early re-signing, and being willing to let go of players that will be out of your price range in later arb years in order to restock and spackle weaknesses in the farm.

I don't think it is necessary or beneficial to clamor for a chance to pay $250 million for ten years for anybody.

I don't think it is beneficial to even pay $100 million for ten years for anybody.

If you can extend Adley now... for a healthy discount... you do it.. otherwise you resign yourself to the fact that you're a small market team.. and you're going to have to trade him for farm stock while he still has some control.

A lot of what you say is true. Your cheapness is over the top though. 

[Bemorewins]

7 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Yes, you definitely said that.   Since most of the spending desires were centered on pitching, let’s look at how the prime targets are doing: 

deGrom 3.04 ERA in 26.1 IP in 5 starts. 
Rodon hasn’t pitched. 
Verlander hasn’t pitched.

Senga 4.29 ERA in 21.0 IP

Bassitt 5.40 ERA in 21.2 IP

Taillon 4.50 ERA in 14.0 IP

Walker 3.80 ERA in 21.1 IP

Manaea 6.60 ERA in 15.0 IP

Heaney 4.34 ERA in 18.2 IP

Syndergaard 4.91 ERA in 22.0 IP

Eovaldi 5.40 ERA in 21.2 IP

Elfin 2.81 ERA in 16.0 IP

Only the first 3 names (deGrom, Rodon, Verlander - 2 of which are hurt) did anything for me in terms of wanting to sign in the offseason. Because they posses the type of talent that we don't have now, a frontline/ace starting pitcher.

All of the others are basically in the mold of what we already have now and I didn't see them as being really any type of significant upgrade.

I don't want us to spend just for the sake of it. But I do want us to spend WISELY on the right item(s)/player(s).

By the way, I really don't love want we spent on - Kyle Gibson and Frazier. Gibson will do nothing for us down the stretch just like Lyles didn't. They just aren't good enough. And Frazier is a redundant player on the roster who only prevented us being able to start the season with a guy with more upside like Ortiz or Westburg. Frazier is simply a little bit better version of Varva. And I would prefer to have neither!  

[wildcard]

9 minutes ago, geschinger said:

From hearing Angelos talk, that might be the most realistic outcome.  But I'm hoping the model is Houston but with a payroll slightly rightsized for the Baltimore market.  I think this is entirely doable with a payroll no higher than it was in the mid 2010s.   And we did hire staff from Houston and nothing the Orioles have/haven't done to this point has deviated from that Houston model.  

I don't want to see the Orioles sell every player but also be realistic about whom they can keep.  For every Altuve like long term deal,  let Correa and Springer type talent go with talent in the pipeline to take their place instead of bad contracts keeping players into their 30s.

In the mid 2010s the O's spent most of their money on players salaries.  They had not international player scouting, no analytics,  and not the player development staff they have now.  All those things cost money.  So I question if the O's can spend of those items as they are now and also spend like they did on players salaries in the 2010s with the owners desire for profits.    

That is why the Tampa model works for the O's.

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, geschinger said:

Agree completely and if they are winning it can average at the higher end of that range assuming attendance increases.  

Right, which it will. I’m not sure they can get back to 2.8-3M because of the Nats but 2.4-2.7 is definitely doable and that should be enough to keep the payroll in those ranges.

[owknows]

10 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

A lot of what you say is true. Your cheapness is over the top though. 

I'm not really cheap... (and personally I'm ridiculously not cheap, to a fault)

I just think the corporatization of the game, salaries, the Free Agency spiral, municipal money, TV money etc.. have warped the game into an unsustainable path.

And I see the clever teams who are finding ways to beat the system and build winners without indulging in this spiral, are healthy for the future of the game.

So I'm rooting for them.

Edited April 24, 2023 by owknows

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, wildcard said:

In the mid 2010s the O's spent most of their money on players salaries.  They had not international player scouting, no analytics,  and not the player development staff they have now.  All those things cost money.  So I question if the O's can spend of those items as they are now and also spend like they did on players salaries in the 2010s with the owners desire for profits.    

That is why the Tampa model works for the O's.

Those things cost next to nothing. Stop falling into the trap that we can’t afford player payroll because of that.  It’s complete bs.

The Os don’t need to spend 70-90M because they are doing that stuff.  

[Sports Guy]

Just now, owknows said:

I'm not really cheap... (and personally I'm ridiculously not cheap, to a fault)

I just think the corporatization of the game, salaries, the Free Agency spiral, municipal money, TV money etc.. have warped the game into an unsustainable path.

And I see the clever teams who are finding ways to beat the system and build winners without indulging in this spiral, are healthy for the future of the game.

Some I'm rooting for them.

No, you are cheap..at least in the way you want the Os to operate.

I happened to watch Moneyball yesterday.  I love so much about what Oakland did and what their goal was.  It really was brilliant.

But we don’t have to be that cheap. We can sustain 120M+ payrolls.

What we shouldn’t  be doing is spending any real money on the last 10-15 players on the roster. You should be developing role players every year as opposed to paying 3-5M for a guy like Givens.

You shouldn’t extend or sign Mountcastle like guys to larger contracts. He is a guy that the moneyball haters (the scouts) would say you have to keep..hits 30 homers, can drive in 100 runs, etc…let someone else stupidly pay him 15+M a year for 4-7 years. 
 

But you can and should absolutely spend on difference making talent.

Basically , you do what Houston has been doing. Short term, cheaper FA deals, trades and keep your best players. 

[wildcard]

13 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

I keep hearing some people talk about the "Tampa model" but I struggle to see ANY other Major league franchise that has come anywhere no close to being able to consistently develop ELITE pitching talent... Maybe the Dodgers? Maybe the Guardians?

The Orioles are being built NOTHING like the Rays. All of our top draft resources have gone into positional players.

Do you have confidence that the O's can develop ELITE pitching consistently like the Rays have? If so, what informs that confidence?

To start with I have a lot more confidence  in GRod, Bradish, Kremer, Wells, Means, Hall and Seth Johnson then many do.  Also the O's have shown the ability to cheaply acquire and develop relievers.  Plus the O's ability to have an above average defensive team that helps the pitching staff.

Many don't think of those starters as elite but I think they are developing  and that there will be five that can carry this team to the World Series.    And I believe in the O's to identify, acquire  and develop additional young pitchers.

[Bemorewins]

14 minutes ago, owknows said:

I believe that it is possible to put together a winning club in perpetuity, by drafting well, solid international presence, making sound decisions regarding early re-signing, and being willing to let go of players that will be out of your price range in later arb years in order to restock and spackle weaknesses in the farm.

I don't think it is necessary or beneficial to clamor for a chance to pay $250 million for ten years for anybody.

I don't think it is beneficial to even pay $100 million for ten years for anybody.

If you can extend Adley now... for a healthy discount... you do it.. otherwise you resign yourself to the fact that you're a small market team.. and you're going to have to trade him for farm stock while he still has some control.

Okay let me ask you a couple of questions:

1) Do you live in this community?

2) Are you a part of the Angelos family or are you a member of the Orioles P/R?

Because what you are advocating for is alienating even more fans. Have you noticed that the Rays have NO FANS? That's because most people fall in love with people... You know like the players on the actual team. If you don't have any stars to market and people don't have any trust that you will retain any of them, people will lose interest in the team.

For younger fans, the names on the back of the shirts MATTER a big deal. Not many people are just going to support the shirts because it's black and orange and says Orioles.

The days of the uniformed fan who just exhibits BLIND LOYALTY to a team are just about over. You have to have plays/stars to market and sell to your fanbase. I know analytics are everything in the game, but there is a HUMAN component to the emotional investment that it requires to be a fan of the team.

I'M ALL THE WAY OUT ON WHAT YOU ARE SELLING! Because this will only truly benefit the pockets of the owner. And I have ABSOLUTELY no interest in rooting for a billion dollar business to make more millions by being cheap.

[seak05]

I imagine the actual records will change by the end of the year, but I think there is something to this.

Baseball is trending younger, including this year as speed/base stealing are on the rise. Plus the age 27 season being the likely peak for a player is an idea that has been around for a while. Lower payroll teams are presumably younger on average due to those being the cost controlled years. So we might start to see a rise in lower payroll teams being among the most competitive. 

[Going Underground]

15 minutes ago, wildcard said:

In the mid 2010s the O's spent most of their money on players salaries.  They had not international player scouting, no analytics,  and not the player development staff they have now.  All those things cost money.  So I question if the O's can spend of those items as they are now and also spend like they did on players salaries in the 2010s with the owners desire for profits.    

That is why the Tampa model works for the O's.

Tampa's model has changed a little. More extensions for players  Akso read if and when they get their new stadium ,they will boost  payroll even higher