For The Times they are a'Changin

[deward]

4 minutes ago, owknows said:

If you draft poorly, you'll handcuff your team's chances

If you don't understand the international market, you'll handcuff your team's chances

If you make bad early signing decisions, you'll handcuff your team's chances

If you sign big money free agents whose performance falls off a cliff, you'll handcuff your chances.

If you make bad trades, you'll handcuff your team's chances.

Having a GM who really understands the game and makes wise decisions is important to your success.

They don't have to be perfect.. but they better be right more often than not.

Whether you have a big market "buy it" strategy... or a small market "grow it" strategy.

If you tie yourself to one primary avenue of talent acquisition and fail at it, you'll handcuff your team's chances. 

If you leave all options on the table, you have the flexibility to work around the inevitable mistakes.

[geschinger]

17 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I’m talking both. They didn’t need to rebuild/tank for 4+ years to get the system to a high level.

I agree that it shouldn't take tanking 4+ years.   3 100 loss seasons allow the accumulation of enough draft capital to rebuild a farm system with good drafting.  

 

[deward]

3 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

It must be infuriating to be the GM of the Tampa Rays. 

In 2008, they won 97 games, won the division, went to the World Series for the love of all that's holy and averaged 22K a night. 

https://www.espn.com/mlb/attendance/_/year/2008

Winning drives attendance for everyone but them. 

Since 2010, they are 167 games over .500 and every single year in that span they have been no better than 3rd worst in all of baseball in attendance. For 9 consecutive years from 2010-2019 they were dead last in attendance. 

It's the horrifying mausoleum they call the Trop, mostly. Transient population probably also plays a role. They are likely more Yankees fans in Tampa than Rays fans.

I know it's not the only problem, but I strongly suspect that feeling like they are just a feeder team for bigger markets dampens fan enthusiasm. I know it would dampen mine after a while.

[Bemorewins]

23 minutes ago, owknows said:

Setting aside your emotional histrionics, yes... I'm a local. And no, I'm not an Angelos. and not affiliated with the Orioles.

I'm just a fan... of both baseball... and of the Orioles.

And I think the game is on a bad path.

And I think clever teams finding ways to build winners without spending obscene amounts of money is good for those teams, and good for the sport.

Whether you're in on what I'm selling is a matter of complete indifference to me.

Your approach very much has indifference baked into it. Indifference to me from you is fine. But the Orioles should not be indifferent to their fans. 

The A's treated their fans this way for a long time and now they are moving. I would hate for that to happen to the Orioles because they choose to continually alienate their fans.

[Bemorewins]

26 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Look at Atlanta. They don’t really play in the FA waters either. They keep their own, let guys walk/trade them that they don’t want to go crazy to keep and they keep churning out great systems because of how well they run things.

They don’t need to be bad to do this. It’s just being smart.

For years, everyone has feared the Yankees and yes they win a lot of games but they don’t scare me, as an organization, nearly as much as Tampa does. 

I am ALL for having a similar model to the Braves and Astros. You cannot retain all of your good players. Heck even the Dodgers have had to let guys walk.

But the Rays are an altogether DIFFERENT BEAST because they have been and continue to be so successful in developing ELITE pitching. I don't know if we can do that and there is nothing in Elias' draft approach that even suggest that this is a goal.

[Bemorewins]

23 minutes ago, deward said:

I've said before, your model relies on Elias (or any GM) being perfect all the time. Adley is a superstar. Gunnar could be a superstar. Holliday could be a superstar. That caliber of player doesn't grow on trees, and the idea of a team having a "conveyor belt" to churn out that caliber of player on a regular basis strikes me as closer to a pipe dream than a sustainable model. If the O's were somehow able to master the process of reliably producing replacements for their stars, on schedule, with no talent drop off, then sure, I guess, John Angelos can continue to rake in profits off the backs of wildly underpaid young players. 

In reality, no team has ever achieved that level of perfection, not even Tampa. The O's obviously don't need a LAD/NYY/BOS sized payroll to compete, but the correlation between teams that are in the top half of the league in payroll and teams and bring home the trophy each year is long and strong. I'd suggest that the optimal model for a team in the O's market would be a flexible one. Draft/int'l sign and develop well, of course. Identify opportunities to pick up undervalued players, of course. Trade certain players when the time is right, sure (keeping in mind that nobody wins all of those player-for-prospects trades, or even most of them). I think they would be foolish to not be in the process of identifying players that can't be easily replaced and figuring out if keeping them long-term is feasible (just like Tampa did with Wander Franco). They should also be looking for opportunities to selectively add established players at key positions of need, even if it means taking on the last 2-3 years of a big contract. You don't need to throw money at every problem, but the willingness to throw money at some key opportunities will be crucial.

Of course, if more and more teams decided to go your route, there wouldn't be enough teams left to trade your soon-to-be expensive players to anyway, so the whole thing would break down.

I COULD NOT HAVE SAID THIS ANY BETTER!!! THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!

[deward]

1 minute ago, Bemorewins said:

I am ALL for having a similar model to the Braves and Astros. You cannot retain all of your good players. Heck even the Dodgers have had to let guys walk.

But the Rays are an altogether DIFFERENT BEAST because they have been and continue to be so successful in developing ELITE pitching. I don't know if we can do that and there is nothing in Elias' draft approach that even suggest that this is a goal.

As others have mentioned, even the Rays seem to have concluded that never investing in your young stars isn't the best strategy, as evidenced by the Wander Franco extension.

[Hank Scorpio]

Just now, Bemorewins said:

Your approach very much has indifference baked into it. Indifference to me from you is fine. But the Orioles should not be indifferent to their fans. 

The A's treated their fans this way for a long time and now they are moving. I would hate for that to happen to the Orioles because they choose to continually alienate their fans.

Winning cures everything, even if people are mad because their favorite player was just traded to the Astros. If you have some secret sauce and you win, I literally don't care how you do it.

You could trade Gunnar Henderson & Adley Rutschman for Bucky Finklestein and a bag of balls. I would be fairly annoyed by that. Until the team subsequently went to the playoffs and won the World Series... then I'd kind of gloss over the trade and change the subject about how great it is to be wrong and attend the parade down Pratt Street. 

[Bemorewins]

16 minutes ago, owknows said:

If you draft poorly, you'll handcuff your team's chances

If you don't understand the international market, you'll handcuff your team's chances

If you make bad early signing decisions, you'll handcuff your team's chances

If you sign big money free agents whose performance falls off a cliff, you'll handcuff your chances.

If you make bad trades, you'll handcuff your team's chances.

Having a GM who really understands the game and makes wise decisions is important to your success.

They don't have to be perfect.. but they better be right more often than not.

Whether you have a big market "buy it" strategy... or a small market "grow it" strategy.

I agree with ALL of this!!!

[geschinger]

25 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

That’s not true. They kept the guys they wanted. They have signed and extended a lot of players.

They didn’t see the need to spend stupidly on Correa..because of Peña and his injury history. They didn’t need/want to spend on Springer because of his injury history. They let those guys walk because they didn’t want to keep them.

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.  

[Bemorewins]

12 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

It must be infuriating to be the GM of the Tampa Rays. 

In 2008, they won 97 games, won the division, went to the World Series for the love of all that's holy and averaged 22K a night. 

https://www.espn.com/mlb/attendance/_/year/2008

Winning drives attendance for everyone but them. 

Since 2010, they are 167 games over .500 and every single year in that span they have been no better than 3rd worst in all of baseball in attendance. For 9 consecutive years from 2010-2019 they were dead last in attendance. 

It's the horrifying mausoleum they call the Trop, mostly. Transient population probably also plays a role. They are likely more Yankees fans in Tampa than Rays fans.

I would argue that there is more to it than simply winning. In our same community the Baltimore Ravens have consistently won, but are finding themselves at a crossroads now and experiencing harsh fan reaction because of the situation with their most marketable/biggest star player.

At some point, fans will grow indifferent to always being almost good enough (i.e. the Rays, Ravens for the last 10 years) if there are no championships. 

[Bemorewins]

1 minute ago, Bemorewins said:

I would argue that there is more to it than simply winning. In our same community the Baltimore Ravens have consistently won, but are finding themselves at a crossroads now and experiencing harsh fan reaction because of the situation with their most marketable/biggest star player.

At some point, fans will grow indifferent to always being almost good enough (i.e. the Rays, Ravens for the last 10 years) if there are no championships. 

Sorry I should have added - Especially if that approach is alienating to fans. The Rays not spending, never retaining start players. In our community, the Ravens being extremely stubborn and dogmatic set on an approach that is very one dimensional.

[Hank Scorpio]

2 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

I would argue that there is more to it than simply winning. In our same community the Baltimore Ravens have consistently won, but are finding themselves at a crossroads now and experiencing harsh fan reaction because of the situation with their most marketable/biggest star player.

At some point, fans will grow indifferent to always being almost good enough (i.e. the Rays, Ravens for the last 10 years) if there are no championships. 

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.) 

[Bemorewins]

8 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Winning cures everything, even if people are mad because their favorite player was just traded to the Astros. If you have some secret sauce and you win, I literally don't care how you do it.

You could trade Gunnar Henderson & Adley Rutschman for Bucky Finklestein and a bag of balls. I would be fairly annoyed by that. Until the team subsequently went to the playoffs and won the World Series... then I'd kind of gloss over the trade and change the subject about how great it is to be wrong and attend the parade down Pratt Street. 

Who wouldn't take a World Series here? Especially considering it's been 40 years!

But the problem is that trying to be the Rays means if we get their results, it will be 15+ years and we still won't have one.

I would rather try being the Braves or Astros because in the end we have empirical proof that their way of doing things led to a title. 

[wildcard]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

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.  

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.

Edited April 24, 2023 by wildcard