Astro's Model?

[Jim'sKid26]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Their model is the right one for any franchise.

Ah, the blanket statement. Delivered with absolute certainty and confidence. Devoid of explanation or evidence. Begging for a reply. Ok @Sports Guy. I'll bite. 

Why do you say this? 

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Jim'sKid26 said:

Ah, the blanket statement. Delivered with absolute certainty and confidence. Devoid of explanation or evidence. Begging for a reply. Ok @Sports Guy. I'll bite. 

Why do you say this? 

Because it’s common sense and smart. Don’t spend stupidly, build from within, keep your own, make trades to supplement your team and let guys leave when their salaries outweigh their value.

These are pretty basic concepts but a lot of teams don’t abide by them.

[Bemorewins]

25 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

I feel hood winked!  I thought it was a model question but turns out to be an Ohtani question!

To focus on the model: 

Astros is a good comp for the rebuild itself.  The focus on draft slotting, building the pipeline, gearing up the analytics, and international scouting/development department.  One other thing they've done that we haven't realized yet (because we're so new to the international build-out) is developing international signees into key players (especially pitchers).

But we're transitioning to a "keep the lights on" ongoing business model phase.  Every team has constraints of various kinds.  A big one is revenues/budgets.  Like Aglets shared, Houston's business model isn't where we're heading (city size and corporate structure are much stronger in Houston and Atlanta for that matter).  On the flip side, GMs in bigger markets are nearly always on the hot seat to prove they are being competitive through FA signings.  That's a constraint that Elias doesn't currently have.  Our budgetary constraints will be more like Tampa or Cleveland but with a higher ceiling IMO.  I do think we can be in spitting distance of league average though.  But we're still in the early phases of this transition out of the rebuild.  For reference, Houston's 2022 revenues were in the $400m zip code.  Tampa/Cleveland are in the $250-270m zip code.

When I think of the "Tampa model" it's about maximizing the entire roster talent primarily.  They play a lot of platoons.  They innovate with openers/middlers/bullpen games.  They value defense up the middle (C, SS) and all around the OF.  They play hitters at traditionally weak positions (2B).  They value a deep bullpen.  They look for ways to arbitrage stats/metrics (like being willing to bat a slow guy (Diaz) ahead of a speedy hitter (Wander/Arozarena) simply for the OBP even if he clogs up the basepath).  None of those things are budget specific, but there are times where they need to make decisions based on the budget.  Like they are willing to trade talent to get talent (buyer to seller, buyer to buyer, MiLB trades, multi-team deals, take a loss when appropriate, org building moves...).  They are selective with their longer termed contracts.  

 

OH is not your typical fan.  If you're here (commenting or lurking), you're next level.  Everyone here knows these concerns and have weighted them however we want.

Payroll doesn't equal on-field performance, but I do think there is some correlation.  We've seen plenty of really bad contracts just this off-season.  Going further back, we've seen some good first year or two, but then train wrecks later in the contract.  This is one place where modern portfolio theory comes into play with hedging, risk tolerance, ROI, etc.  If we're looking just at the activity that Tampa, Cleveland, Houston (or even LAD, NYY), etc. are doing, then we're missing the lessons learned from their "models."

Great post!!

While I agree that Tampa is willing to use many unconventional/unorthodox methods in order to close the gap with the competition based upon the fact that they are willing to use more traditional means for talent acquisition. 

My main concern is that for all of their innovation and effectiveness over the last 15+ years, they have consistently been good but never good enough (similar to their predecessors in the Oakland A's). IMO they have never been willing to do what it takes to move from where they are "very good" to where they could become "great"/champions.

In this modern age of information, people/fans/customers are not stupid nor uninformed. A large swarth of a fanbase is simply not going to be satisfied nor consistently support a philosophy/org bar that says "well at least we had a winning season" when we are talking about multiple seasons of getting largely the same results. IMO the country is not built that way. In America, we haven't traditionally celebrated 2nd place (especially in sports), that's our athletic leagues are set up to crown 1 champion, as opposed to European soccer as an example where there are multiple tournaments/leagues/champions all within the same season.

Getting back to the O's and baseball, I believe that our ownership (since the Angeloses have taken over) has always been a hinderance to the teams success. It started out as meddling/interfering with the baseball people and now it has morphed into apathy and general cheapness. Under John Angelos, it appears that he does not possess the capital to really support a winning/thriving/championship competing org. And only has control over the team because of who his father is. It is doubtful that before he took over the O's that he could have been able to even afford to buy the team. Thus it feels like while his father is still alive, this is purely a cash grab for him. IMO this is the reason why we don't see any long term investments from him because his chief concern is not winning or the franchise's viability or relevance in it's market, but just getting as much money as he can for as long as he can.

Fans are not in today's world are not ignorant of this and thus some are not going to support with this type of unstable/unhealthy infrastructure. The Padres and Astros, never enjoyed the type of community/fan support/attendance until people in those began to believe that ownership was investing in the product and they saw some results (though the Padres fans really started coming out in droves before last year's run to the NL championship which I believe was due to the actions/leadership of the owner).

IMO it is VERY HARD to close to impossible for organizations to consistently succeed in the absence of leadership.

[Jim'sKid26]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

Because it’s common sense and smart. Don’t spend stupidly, build from within, keep your own, make trades to supplement your team and let guys leave when their salaries outweigh their value.

These are pretty basic concepts but a lot of teams don’t abide by them.

Then why is it called the Astros' model? What is so "Astro's" about it.

What about the St. Louis model? Or the Tampa Model? 

If it's based on common sense and smart, why call it the Astros' model? 

I'm nit picking here. I know. But I don't think the Astros have cornered the market on developmental strategy and I'm not sure all of the things they did to become a good team are directly applicable to the Orioles. 

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, Baltimorecuse said:

I wish I was as sure as everyone else around here what motivates the family of Oriole's owners, not to mention their financial position.  I would, however, bet serious money before you ever see a Chris Davis deal again.  

No contracts over two years and very few of those.

As for their financial position, enough of the is out there.  The law firm has been shrinking and haven't had a big win in forever.  They certainly aren't making money in music.

[Bemorewins]

10 minutes ago, Baltimorecuse said:

I wish I was as sure as everyone else around here what motivates the family of Oriole's owners, not to mention their financial position.  I would, however, bet serious money before you ever see a Chris Davis deal again.  

A lot of people thought that Davis was a bad investment at the time. We don't have to do Chris Davis type deals to smartly invests in the team. You have to invest in the right players. You know like the young ones who are emerging superstars. Not in older one dimensional players.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Jim'sKid26 said:

Then why is it called the Astros' model? What is so "Astro's" about it.

What about the St. Louis model? Or the Tampa Model? 

If it's based on common sense and smart, why call it the Astros' model? 

I'm nit picking here. I know. But I don't think the Astros have cornered the market on developmental strategy and I'm not sure all of the things they did to become a good team are directly applicable to the Orioles. 

I think the "Astro" model is to tank super hard for draft capital and to slash payroll.

It's no longer a functional model.

[Baltimorecuse]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

No contracts over two years and very few of those.

As for their financial position, enough of the is out there.  The law firm has been shrinking and haven't had a big win in forever.  They certainly aren't making money in music.

Where does that info come from?

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, Jim'sKid26 said:

Then why is it called the Astros' model? What is so "Astro's" about it.

What about the St. Louis model? Or the Tampa Model? 

If it's based on common sense and smart, why call it the Astros' model? 

I'm nit picking here. I know. But I don't think the Astros have cornered the market on developmental strategy and I'm not sure all of the things they did to become a good team are directly applicable to the Orioles. 

I never said they did. There are multiple teams that do it, as I pointed out.

They aren’t re-inventing the wheel. They are just do it smartly and correctly.

[Baltimorecuse]

7 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

A lot of people thought that Davis was a bad investment at the time. We don't have to do Chris Davis type deals to smartly invests in the team. You have to invest in the right players. You know like the young ones who are emerging superstars. Not in older one dimensional players.

A lot of people thought it was the best deal since the Dutch bought Manhattan.  If they hadn't done the deal it would have been pitchforks and howling mobs.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Baltimorecuse

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Baltimorecuse said:

Where does that info come from?

Which the contracts?

The law firm?

The music?

The contracts are public knowledge.

The law firm has been downsizing since 2014.  I think Frobby has even commented in passing on it.  We know they don't have any big wins recently since it would be you know, news if they had.  In fact they had a set back no long ago in regards to I think it was the Asbestos cases.  They were even sued for legal malpractice in 2021.

It's also pretty obvious that the music career isn't taking off.  Record sales, streaming numbers, songwriting and production credits are all right out there.  The missus doesn't seem to be making any inroads.

[Bemorewins]

5 minutes ago, Baltimorecuse said:

A lot of people thought it was the best deal since the Dutch bought Manhattan.  If they hadn't done the deal it would have been pitchforks and howling mobs.

Which do you believe would have been a better deal that would have made fans more "happy" Davis or Machado? I'm pretty sure the answer is rather universal to that question. 

The org chose wrong and paid a terrible price for it.

To be honest, while I enjoyed the success of 2012-2016 and the few playoff games that we got, in the back of my mind I wondered if it was sustainable because it felt like we were built on a house of cards. 

- Really bad ownership

- A GM who didn't appear to have a vision for the long term

- Good but no elite starting pitching 

- A continuous bad farm system with no real structure/system in place for development

- No international scouting

- And not enough money/resources/budget to add true difference makers through FA thus we give away 1st round picks signing guys who weren't that good/difference makers

- A bunch of really bad trades

- A roster of one-dimensional power hitters with no plate discipline, no speed, and ONLY 1 hitter (Machado) who was truly elite. The rest had holes in the swing or could be pitched too by good pitching because of the penchant to constantly chase

Of course I wanted us to win (like every other fan) but I knew in my heart of hearts that we were built all wrong. This feels different, but we still have that same constant obstacle at the top of the organization.

[Baltimorecuse]

10 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Which the contracts?

The law firm?

The music?

The contracts are public knowledge.

The law firm has been downsizing since 2014.  I think Frobby has even commented in passing on it.  We know they don't have any big wins recently since it would be you know, news if they had.  In fact they had a set back no long ago in regards to I think it was the Asbestos cases.  They were even sued for legal malpractice in 2021.

It's also pretty obvious that the music career isn't taking off.  Record sales, streaming numbers, songwriting and production credits are all right out there.  The missus doesn't seem to be making any inroads.

Perhaps you have a list of assets and investments the family owns?  I have no idea.  

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Baltimorecuse said:

Perhaps you have a list of assets and investments the family owns?  I have no idea.  

I'm reasonably sure that if the Angelos family had a sizeable asset on hand it would get mentioned when organizations describe their finical state.

Sports team owners are often profiled.

The law firm isn't doing near as well as in it's prime.

MASN isn't bringing in the money it used to.

That leaves the team.

[Baltimorecuse]

10 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm reasonably sure that if the Angelos family had a sizeable asset on hand it would get mentioned when organizations describe their finical state.

Sports team owners are often profiled.

The law firm isn't doing near as well as in it's prime.

MASN isn't bringing in the money it used to.

That leaves the team.

There is a public financial statement?  I don't think so.  I wouldn't begin to GUESS at the Angelos' financial position.  That's the thing about closely held companies.  They don't show you their numbers.  If the family's wealth is all in a baseball franchise they are stupid.  

I can't argue the point because I have no idea.  Hell, they could be borderline bankrupt for all I know.  I spent too many years financially analyzing businesses not to be skeptical of superficial analysis.