For The Times they are a'Changin

[owknows]

Just now, Sydnor said:

Right, but you didn’t acknowledge the level of competition that these teams have played and that I acknowledged that so you didn’t copy even a full sentence from my post.

And you didn't acknowledge that a large part of "level of competition" differences this early in the season is driven by series wins and sweeps handed to the losing teams by the teams we're discussing.

We'll call it even.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, geschinger said:

I think it's more discipline than who they want/don't wan't.  They did want to keep Correa - they tried to extend him several times.  Where they seem to draw the line (smartly IMO) was years that extended into mid 30s.  I think Altuve's long term contract was through age 32.  I think they would have jumped at opportunity to sign Correa to a 5-6 year deal (I believe he was 26 at the time) but a 10+ year deal was not seriously considered.

Springer was on the wrong side of 30.  I think they like Bregman, but when he's a FA he'll be on the wrong side of 30 so I think he'll be gone as well.  

Right. They want to keep guys..but let’s face it, they aren’t willing to come close to what it will take to keep some of them, so you might as well say you don’t want to keep them.

[Bemorewins]

1 hour ago, Hank Scorpio said:

The Baltimore Ravens may be at a crossroads with their biggest star player (I legit don't know)... but they are gonna sell out every game regardless. 

I tend to disagree with the 2nd part of your statement but I do respect the discourse. Charlie Brown still tries to kick that friggin' football. The Red Sox and Cubs were beloved by their fanbases forever (though I admittedly do not have the attendance stats to back it up.) 

That was in a totally different era of society. Fan attendance is down for live events across the board. There is simply TOO MANY entertainment alternatives in today's world. 

I'm not sure what Ravens that you are talking about, but there is no comparison of fan attendance over the last 10 years as compared to the 10 before that. Even with one of the biggest stars in the sport, the Ravens have not always had full crowds like they used to. And before he arrived, the stadium was at least 1/3 empty on average.

I know that this may be hard for some (not necessarily saying you - I don't know) but the names on the back of the shirts matter in this time that we are now living in. Just look at how younger fans consume sports, when they even decide to pay attention. They are watching YouTube highlights/clips, they are interacting with the players through social media, etc.

If your team doesn't have players to draw people out to the games AND you are not winning, fan interest will be lower.

Just look at the Padres and how they engaged the community now as opposed to when they were considered a "small market" for years. The Rays have been way more successful, but the Padres are drawing way more fans now.

[Sports Guy]

2 hours ago, wildcard said:

Until you define what he O's are paying for international players, staff, facilities, analytics staff and equipment,  the increase in scouting and player development staff I don't they you know what all this cost.    

Also I think you are arguing against yourself when you said 120m in players salaries but are against the Tampa model.   Tampa spent 97m last year by the end of the season and the CB tax rate is 125m.

I think 120m can fit in the Tampa model.

Its still over 100m less they some of the competitors are spending.

No, I’m fine with saying it costs no money in the grand scheme of things. The new DR facility likely didn’t cost much more than 20M, if it even cost that much.

Scouts aren’t making a ton of money. Low to mid 6 figures for the more tenured guys.  

These just aren’t huge costs for an organization that is profiting 70M. 

It’s a complete fallacy. It’s the type of thing the organization will say to make fans think it’s smart to pour the money into that and not the ML product at this point.

They have just done a brilliant job (not just them but any team that rebuilds/tanks for as long as they did) at brainwashing fans into thinking these things are actually true when there isn’t a shred of truth behind any of it.

This team tanked for that long and didn’t spend money for one reason and that’s simply because Angelos doesn’t want to.  That’s it. Any other reason is window dressing to distract you from the actual truth.

Edited April 24, 2023 by Sports Guy

[Bemorewins]

1 hour ago, deward said:

I think there's a big difference between teams like the Cubs and Red Sox losing due to poor management vs feeling like your team is constantly behind the eight ball due to an inherent payroll disparity relative to the bigger markets. It's kind of a different conversation, but baseball is the only major sport that allows this. Thanks to revenue sharing and a salary cap, a Ravens fan knows that his team is at least on a level playing field with the rest of the league when it comes to payroll. If they move on from Jackson, it will be because the team decides it doesn't make sense from a resource allocation standpoint within the cap, not because they flat out can't afford him. 

I know that this is an Orioles board and Orioles discussion, but if the Ravens move on from Jackson there will be an immediate hit to them in terms of a dramatic fall in fan attendance, until/if they can get another big star... and as you have mentioned previously in this thread real star level difference making players don't grow on trees.

[Hank Scorpio]

3 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

That was in a totally different era of society. Fan attendance is down for live events across the board. There is simply TOO MANY entertainment alternatives in today's world. 

I'm not sure what Ravens that you are talking about, but there is no comparison of fan attendance over the last 10 years as compared to the 10 before that. Even with one of the biggest stars in the sport, the Ravens have not always had full crowds like they used to. And before he arrived, the stadium was at least 1/3 empty on average.

I know that this may be hard for some (not necessarily saying you - I don't know) but the names on the back of the shirts matter in this time that we are now living in. Just look at how younger fans consume sports, when they even decide to pay attention. They are watching YouTube highlights/clips, they are interacting with the players through social media, etc.

If your team doesn't have players to draw people out to the games AND you are not winning, fan interest will be lower.

Just look at the Padres and how they engaged the community now as opposed to when they were considered a "small market" for years. The Rays have been way more successful, but the Padres are drawing way more fans now.

I haven't watched the NFL for a decade, so I am admittedly not an expert. But the attendance numbers just don't support your argument. Flip through YOY, the lowest was 99.4% capacity in 2017.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2022

[Bemorewins]

1 hour ago, owknows said:

The Orioles hired what they considered the best GM in the game. They then set about the task of tanking, accumulating players, building the best farm in baseball, graduating wave 1 of that farm into MLB... building a competitive franchise... and are now in the mix at the top...

You may consider this indifference and alienation .

 

I don't.

I hope that Elias BECOMES the best GM or even among the best, but at the time you cannot say he was the best GM since he had never done it before. You can say that they hired who they thought would become the best GM.

Point #2 - I haven't observed any "graduation" as of yet. Unless, by it you mean bringing up players from the minors to major league team.

Point #3 - When you speak of "first wave" are you meaning that to say that this is the cream of the prospect crop? And probably the best that they will ever be able to bring up? - Whatever comes up after this will certainly not be able to match the prospect chops of Adley, Gunnar, and Grayson. Even if Holiday is there equal, we won't be bringing up 3 of him in a year span like we did with the guys we just did.

Point #4 - It only becomes alienating if these young guys produce and help us win (like Manny) and we let them walk in order to go cheap and replace them with players who are not as good. That's my fear in terms of what you seem to be advocating for.

Point #5 - What I meant by indifference is when you ignore your fans and do things that are very unpopular like not spend in the offseason when you said that you would. If the Orioles are in it in July and don't use some of the excess young assets/prospects to add to the team in a meaningful way (i.e. front of the rotation pitching help) that will be indifference and alienating.

I, like you, and I assume every other poster on this board want the O's to win. But I don't want them to only succeed on the field, I want them to succeed my being interesting and engaging in the community. That's what the Rays are not. For all of their on field success.... They have NO FANS AND NO RINGS. That is not what I want for the O's.

[Bemorewins]

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

All my prediction on the O's pitching staff are based in what they have already done.  I am just adding innings as they develop.

You need to keep up.  Hall just pitched 5 innings and allowed 2 earned runs on 85 pitches at AAA,  He is 24 year old.   He is being stretched out and from my perspective is changing the way he is pitching.   Its not all max effort the way it was.  Its focusing more on command.   Stay tuned, he has to show he can sustain it.

I know what he did in his last start and that means much less to me than it does to you. Do you see how little objective value can be drawn from ONE singular minor performance to draw any real conclusion?

By the way, allowing 2 runs in 5 innings at the AAA is not really that impressive. It's definitely NOTHING to suggest that said player can then be counted on to help you start and win in the postseason.

The way that I read your posts, the conclusion that I draw is someone who is an eternal optimist. That is FINE and I RESPECT that! However, I am not that way. I am much more of a realist when it comes to sports. And to be honest, after watching the Orioles for the last 30 years under this nightmarish regime, I am closer to a pessimist. 

[Bemorewins]

11 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

I haven't watched the NFL for a decade, so I am admittedly not an expert. But the attendance numbers just don't support your argument. Flip through YOY, the lowest was 99.4% capacity in 2017.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2022

I attend several Ravens games EVERY season. I have done so since 2002. I can see with my own eyes the difference in full as in butts in the seats and paid attendance being close but people not showing up.

I know some may say well, hey they paid so who cares. Only problem with that is that if they keep on not coming, they are not going to keep on paying.

The Ravens knew that they were in trouble in 2017 in terms of fan interest and decided to do something drastic and go in a different direction to try to be consistently relevant with their fanbase.

Now back to the O's - They need to be trying to GROW their fanbase after the last 5 years, when they did nothing to engage their fans within the community. Having young and exciting players who perform is a start. But now comes the part of being able to enter into the conversation of postseason contention. Then comes how to get to championship contention/winning. Then after that comes, how to keep it going.

I'm pleased with the Orioles progress for the most part, but they have a LONG WAY yet to go.

[Hank Scorpio]

5 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

I attend several Ravens games EVERY season. I have done so since 2002. I can see with my own eyes the difference in full as in butts in the seats and paid attendance being close but people not showing up.

I know some may say well, hey they paid so who cares. Only problem with that is that if they keep on not coming, they are not going to keep on paying.

The Ravens knew that they were in trouble in 2017 in terms of fan interest and decided to do something drastic and go in a different direction to try to be consistently relevant with their fanbase.

Now back to the O's - They need to be trying to GROW their fanbase after the last 5 years, when they did nothing to engage their fans within the community. Having young and exciting players who perform is a start. But now comes the part of being able to enter into the conversation of postseason contention. Then comes how to get to championship contention/winning. Then after that comes, how to keep it going.

I'm pleased with the Orioles progress for the most part, but they have a LONG WAY yet to go.

I understand your argument - fans no longer root for the laundry, they root for the players. 

[Bemorewins]

1 minute ago, Hank Scorpio said:

I understand your argument - fans no longer root for the laundry, they root for the players. 

Not all. But mostly all younger fans. 

People who are in the Generations X, Y, and Z have very little to no institutional or brand loyalty. And that is across the spectrum running much wider than the area of sports or entertainment.

[Just Regular]

Elias is the best GM in the game like Grayson Rodriguez is the best pitcher in the game, and there's some correlation between those outcomes occurring.

So much of the Zen or serenity prayer or however you like to label things that are controllable considers the Process and the Outcome.    I think the NBA's 76ers went pretty far building a marketing campaign around it.

The 2018 Orioles process was compete.     The 2018 Orioles outcome was in the tank.

The 2019-2022 Orioles process was tank.     This was not as clear cut a choice for the 2022 Orioles to fans.     The 2022 Orioles outcome was encouraging, but Elias hewed to a pre-set tank strategy to general praise.

I think the depth of the Elias BAL tank was deeper than the CHC/HOU predecessors.    Whether that is because of the AL East, or Elias' understanding of John Angelos budget capability from the moment he was hired is open to question.    Some of both, beer and tacos, etc, as with most things.

None of that matters now.    If the team maintains playoff contention into summer, Elias ought to ferociously compete for the best available players with the stockpile from Talent Accumulation phase.

No grand laurels to Elias now as he's had the latitude to chart a course none of his 29 competitors could.    My biggest laurels for Elias so far are the results with players like Gunnar and Bautista, and the early returns with Basallo.    Its just table stakes that some of the Maikol Hernandezes and Braylin Taveras bust, but how often can you find a winning ticket.

Assessing Elias' 2023 competitive posture fresh, I'm encouraged by the quick Cole Irvin move.    I don't believe that would have happened last year, when the Club was meant to lose more than it did.    

We'll see next month how the Cowser/Vavra scenario plays out, I see a lot more delta there than between Ortiz/Frazier for the Club's overall talent level.    I believe some of these firm DL Hall SP noises are polishing him as a trade chip.    He'll "go Eflin" if he's still here in August.

[geschinger]

18 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Point #3 - When you speak of "first wave" are you meaning that to say that this is the cream of the prospect crop? And probably the best that they will ever be able to bring up? - Whatever comes up after this will certainly not be able to match the prospect chops of Adley, Gunnar, and Grayson. Even if Holiday is there equal, we won't be bringing up 3 of him in a year span like we did with the guys we just did.

Future waves don't have to have as much quantity as the talent at the MLB should be much higher.  Also not sure why we would automatically assume there isn't another bumper crop.  Whose to say one of Bassalo, Mayo, Willems, etc...don't have a Gunnar level emergence joining Jackson at the top of prospects lists.    Not to mention the org is stocked with prospects that are close like Cowser, Heston, Ortiz, Norby etc.. and can either improve the MLB team or are far enough long to have the kind of value to bring in missing pieces.  

18 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Point #4 - It only becomes alienating if these young guys produce and help us win (like Manny) and we let them walk in order to go cheap and replace them with players who are not as good. That's my fear in terms of what you seem to be advocating for.

One has to distinguish between going cheap and being smart.  Assume for a moment Machado was still an Oriole and they won - it would still be irresponsible/dumb to have signed him to a contract that paid him through age 40 like SD did regardless of how popular he might be with fans.   Not signing Manny in that scenario is smart not cheap.  Now if the Orioles have a chance to extend Adley for ~6 years and are not doing so that would be cheap and dumb.

[Bemorewins]

3 minutes ago, geschinger said:

Future waves don't have to have as much quantity as the talent at the MLB should be much higher.  Also not sure why we would automatically assume there isn't another bumper crop.  Whose to say one of Bassalo, Mayo, Willems, etc...don't have a Gunnar level emergence joining Jackson at the top of prospects lists.    Not to mention the org is stocked with prospects that are close like Cowser, Heston, Ortiz, Norby etc.. and can either improve the MLB team or are far enough long to have the kind of value to bring in missing pieces.  

One has to distinguish between going cheap and being smart.  Assume for a moment Machado was still an Oriole and they won - it would still be irresponsible/dumb to have signed him to a contract that paid him through age 40 like SD did regardless of how popular he might be with fans.   Not signing Manny in that scenario is smart not cheap.  Now if the Orioles have a chance to extend Adley for ~6 years and are not doing so that would be cheap and dumb.

Okay, it would take a VERY FAR leap and some serious orange colored glasses to Cowser, Heston, Ortiz or Norby being on par as a prospect to Grayson, Gunnar, or Adley. Like those 3 guys flirted with or where the #1 prospect in baseball at a time. Cowser, Kjerstad, Ortiz, or Norby are NO WHERE close to that. Cowser is curently highest rated in the mid 30's on top 100 lists. They are the type of players that are used to supplement a major league roster or use as trade chips in a package to acquire the missing piece. They in and of themselves are not the type of players who are organization cornerstones.

As far as Manny goes, no I don't think that the second contract that he signed with the Padres was smart for them and will end up working out in the end. But I admire them for showing good faith to their fans in terms of trying to being a World Series to San Diego. IF we would have signed Machado to an extension proactively, like all of the the other good orgs do, he would have eventually walked. But not before we would have gotten all or at least most of his best years and he would have become an Orioles Hall of Famer with his number being out in LF with the others.

[foxfield]

2 hours ago, deward said:

The 2012-2016 O's won the most games in the AL, made the playoffs three times, won a division title, and went to the ALCS once. I'd prefer to give Elias the chance to prove he can top that (admittedly not super-high) bar before I anoint him.

This is completely fair.  Any real assessment of Elias would have to include the full results of this year, when the Orioles are admittedly working to compete.  However, the only bar I am concerned with is one that results in a WS Title.  I don't say any of that to take away from the DD years.  He said he intended to win and then he did, all the way until it no longer worked. In hind site, it left one wondering, like the Kris Kristofferson song...if the going up was worth the coming down.

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Right. They want to keep guys..but let’s face it, they aren’t willing to come close to what it will take to keep some of them, so you might as well say you don’t want to keep them.

This may well be true, but we don't know that today.  And as you noted about Houston previously, it isn't smart to sign everyone, just the ones you want to keep.  In reality, unless they want to keep Santander, Hays or Mountcastle....I don't think those decisions have to be made today.

_______________

I will add that other than some chirping and name calling this is a very interesting thread.  Personally, I am hoping that what Elias does is lead the team to a long term success that brings a title to Baltimore.  And if/when they win one, I will want two, etc etc.

But I think other than comparing the different styles that successful teams have used, I don't really think the Orioles fit into those molds.  What I mean is obviously the Orioles are never going to spend with LAD, NYY, BOS etc.  Maybe that changes with a new owner, but until that occurs, it isn't worth considering.

The Orioles also don't fit the Tampa mold.  Tampa has been successful, and yet not quite enough to win it all.  And in spite of the success no-one cares enough to come and see em.  That isn't Baltimore.  IF the Orioles win for three years in a row, tickets are going to be sold.  At least that is my opinion.

Houston and Atlanta are two models that to me are more closely related to Baltimore but are in locations that will allow them to do more than Baltimore.  San Diego is also similar but their ownership takes them out of our league.

I want Elias to use what is here, what this ownership gives him, and makes the best franchise he can make.  The foundation of that is done.  

The question is can this be elevated from competitive to a winner.  I think it may be possible.  But I think Elias or any GM in Baltimore will have to build their own system more so than copying someone else's.  And I think a successful system in Baltimore with current ownership, might look something like other successes, but mostly be it's own thing.

Edited April 24, 2023 by foxfield