Is anyone upset that a team just shelled out $1 billion???

[waroriole]

I just wish our owner would spend some of the outlandish profits the team gets. 

[Tony-OH]

18 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Even with the Rangers, IMO, they still built their team the right way.  Evan Carter and Josh Jung are future stars.  They went out and purchase Seager and Semien but they also had some good young talent to add those guys to.

 

Rangers may have good young players, but they augmented them by bringing in those guys as well as impact starting pitching that heled them, especially in the playoffs. I'm not taking away from their World Championship, just saying they did spend heavy to turn it around so fast. But at the end of the day, they just happened to get white hot at the right time and that means more than anything else once you make the playoffs.

[Moose Milligan]

1 minute ago, Tony-OH said:

Ranges may have good young players, but they augmented them by bringing in those guys as well impact starting pitching that heled them, especially in the playoffs. I'm not taking away from their World Championship, just saying they did spend heavy to turn it around so fast. But at the end of the day, they just happened to get white hot at the right time and that means more than anything else once you make the playoffs.

We agree.  Timing matters for so much.

[clapdiddy]

1 minute ago, Tony-OH said:

Ranges may have good young players, but they augmented them by bringing in those guys as well impact starting pitching that heled them, especially in the playoffs. I'm not taking away from their World Championship, just saying they did spend heavy to turn it around so fast. But at the end of the day, they just happened to get white hot at the right time and that means more than anything else once you make the playoffs.

Agreed.   The problem with the Dodgers is not only do they spend, but they are an excellently run organization that has a tremendous farm system.   They are the anti-Orioles where they only need to supplement their team with their farm system.   I guess either method can work.     And...like you stated...once you get to the playoffs, anything goes.

[NashLumber]

I suppose there's some chance at least that one of those contracts end up resembling the Chris Davis latter years and are a drag on their books. 

[Camden_yardbird]

Yes an no.  There are a few things I think people point to that are false signs of parity and I do believe that baseball with its current rule structure has effectively ended parity.  I also think it will slowly kill itself in small markets where stars are developed and leave.

9 winners in the last 10 years is not a sign of parity when considering payroll.  It is when considering there are 30 teams.  But that's a false equivalency. 

The argument that teams spend and don't win is also a terrible argument. Did you know, remarkably, that 9 of the top 10 payrolls in the game don't win each year.  Astounding!

Flip it around.   In the last 10 years only 2 teams outside of the top 10 in payroll have won. 15 years...add one more.

The last 5 years (OD Payroll): 4th, 8th, 10th, 1st, 4th...

And that's not accounting for in season trades like adding scherzer to last year's Rangers.

So there are a bunch of bad arguments that there is parity, but a single team spending...not a big deal.  They are right about that.

It is NECESSARY to spend to win the World Series, however it is not SUFFICIENT to spend to win the world series.

The first part is what I dont like, that said, at this point I think my qualm is more with the billionaire owners who don't spend than it is the system.

The second part is why I don't really care about the Dodgers spending a billion dollars.  It doesn't mean they will win, it's just means they have a better shot at it. 9 out of 10 top payrolls don't win.

I will say this as relates to the Orioles....only 1 team outside of the top 15 payrolls has won the WS since 1995. So...

It's time to spend some F-ing money.  And that doesn't have to be on bad FA contracts.  Sign your own guys.

Edited December 27, 2023 by Camden_yardbird

[Tony-OH]

3 minutes ago, clapdiddy said:

Agreed.   The problem with the Dodgers is not only do they spend, but they are an excellently run organization that has a tremendous farm system.   They are the anti-Orioles where they only need to supplement their team with their farm system.   I guess either method can work.     And...like you stated...once you get to the playoffs, anything goes.

The one thing we forget sometimes is that your prospects are nothing more than commodities that should be used to help your major league team to win. Whether that be for them to become cheap talent that helps you on the Orioles roster or by being traded to bring in talent that will do so, that's their roles. 

The Dodgers are not afraid to trade their young players for major league proven talent because they don't have time to risk a rookie needing time to adjust to the major leagues. 

This is one of the areas where Elias has a big challenge. He can't just take on the salary that the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, or Red Sox can take on so he's got to figure out how to stage his young players coming to the majors. This was part of the reason why i was so dead set against the Adam Frazier deal because I thought last year was a great year to break in Westburg and Ortiz. As you could see, Westburg needed some time to adjust and never showed the power he's capable of at the major league level last year during that adjustment. I would have preferred that he got 400+ PAs last year at the major league level instead of just 228 because it would have made him better prepared for this year. 

Ortiz basically lost his major league PAs last year due to the Frazier signing.

Now Elias has Westburg, Ortiz, Norby, Mayo, Cowser, Kjerstad, and Stowers all ready to play in the majors but only Westburg and Stowers to a lesser extent have any real MLB playing time under their belts.

The Dodgers would take a few of them and trade them for an impact proven starting pitcher, 3B or outfielder. 

Elias is still trying to figure out how to do win and still have that depth, because he can't spend his way out of major injuries or poor performance like the big market teams can.

[Prayin4Reign]

Not really.  Those acquisitions guarantee them nothing other than a lot of money to pay out.   

Edited December 27, 2023 by Prayin4Reign

[Can_of_corn]

I'd much rather all the owners just pocket their profits instead of spending it on players.

How dare a few go and make the rest look bad like that!

[wildcard]

1 hour ago, ChosenOne21 said:

How many more games do you think we win next year with Ohtani and Yamamoto on the roster?

None because they will not be on the Orioles roster.

How many more game do you think LAD will win when Ohtani and Yamamoto go on the IL?

Edited December 27, 2023 by wildcard

[E-D-D-I-E]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

I also find a little bit of this to be silly and hyperbole.

The way the playoffs are now designed - 12 teams with a 5 game series with 7 game series after that- make it increasingly hard for a team like the Dodgers to win it all.  This isn't the NBA where a team like the Heat can load up 3 great players and win a few rings.  This isn't the NFL where a franchise quarterback can give you a chance.  I mean, the inherent setup of baseball makes it hard for one player to exercise his will over the course of a game like Michael Jordan could in basketball.  No, each player gets 4 at bats, maybe 5.  

Over the past 10 years, 14 different teams have made the World Series and 9 different teams have won it.  That's the most diverse set of champions in any North American sport (I'm not including the WNBA or whatever).  The NHL had one more team in the Stanley Cup Finals, with one less winner.  

When it comes to parity, MLB is ahead of the NFL (11 teams, seven different winners) and the NBA (10 teams in their finals, 5 winners).  

Even if you expand it to the previous 25 years, the MLB still outpaces either of the other three major sports leagues.  16 different teams over 25 years have won the World Series which is more than the NHL (14), the NFL (13), and the NBA (11).  

To say the MLB doesn't care about parity is absurd when they're the team with the most parity of all the major league sports.  

Spending doesn't matter, it doesn't matter at all.  The Dodgers have spent more than anyone over the past 10 years and they have one (Mickey Mouse) World Series to show for it.  The Yankees are #2 in spending over the past 10 years, they haven't even made it to the World Series.

If spending a billion makes the Dodgers some kind of new villain to take the Yankees place, fine.  Baseball is at it's best, IMO, when there's a villain like the Yankees.  That's why there's so much pleasure in beating the Yankees, they're the most decorated team in the history of North American sports.  The Yankees were the original super team, especially in the first half of the 1900s and they did it over and over again, all the way up through the start of the 60s.  A little bit in the late 70s, a little more in the late 90s.

Count me out when it comes to the amount of whining that's going on in regards to how much the Dodgers have spent.  I'm actually on the other end of the spectrum, I think it's awesome and I'm stoked about it.  I want to see Ohtani in a major media market, (I don't consider the Angels to be a major media market, despite being in LA, they're a second rate organization in a first rate town) I want to see Ohtani in the playoffs.  I want to see the best player in the history of the game on the game's biggest stage, especially since the Angels continually boofed the pooch with Trout.  Ohtani in the World Series; THAT is good for baseball, no matter how you slice it.  I want to see Yamamoto dominate and relive what it was like to see Hideo Nomo in '95, only now I'm older and I can appreciate it more.  

Having Ohtani suiting up for the Dodgers is arguably the best thing that could have happened to the sport and I'm happy about it.  I don't care about the cost.

 

 

 

Calling Ohtani the best player in the history of the game is laughable. 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, E-D-D-I-E said:

Calling Ohtani the best player in the history of the game is laughable. 

It's a defensible take.

[E-D-D-I-E]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

It's a defensible take.

150 Homer's and 38 wins. I reiterate my statement. It is laughable. 

Ruth for example had 94 wins and 714 homers.

Let's at least wait for Ohtani to get into the same universe before onoiting him King.

 

[Sports Guy]

16 minutes ago, E-D-D-I-E said:

Calling Ohtani the best player in the history of the game is laughable. 

Best player..no

Best talent…definitely in the conversation 

[Can_of_corn]

15 minutes ago, E-D-D-I-E said:

150 Homer's and 38 wins. I reiterate my statement. It is laughable. 

Ruth for example had 94 wins and 714 homers.

Let's at least wait for Ohtani to get into the same universe before onoiting him King.

 

Quality of play improves over time.

You put Ruth in the box against Ohtani and he strikes out.

You put Ruth on the mound against Ohtani and it's batting practice.

If your view is the best today is the best ever, Ohtani has it.

Is anyone saying Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest of all time?   He played in the '60's!

 

Obviously if you are adjusting for era and all that it changes things, but if your chosen criteria doesn't account for that...it's a valid take.

If you could drop anyone onto the 2023 Orioles are you saying you'd take 1923 Ruth?