Moving forward, what are your expectations for payroll in comparison to the rest of the league?

[Frobby]

35 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

 

It’s frankly embarrassing for an organization with this type of historic pedigree to not have had a single HOF player in almost 2 generations. And the only one we produced we allowed to get away.

* * *

 

When I take them to O’s games and even more importantly hopefully when they have their own families and take their children to O’s games, they will see something similar and have the same sense of pride of having witnessed something special.

That is why I have no interest in being run like the Rays. What is that legacy? - We were good and cheap, but never good enough. Where are their banners? Where are their Hall of Famers? What parades have they ever had?

At the end of the day, as a sports fan of any team most seasons end in disappointment (as I explained to my 7 year old after the Ravens lost the other week). However, on the rare occasions at the end of the season when your team (our O’s) are hoisting up the trophy in triumph, it makes all of those disappointments and heartbreaks worth it.

I feel like you are conflating or combining two points:

1.  The O’s can’t win a championship without signing some players to long term contracts.  See: the Rays.

2.  Even if the team doesn’t win a championship, fans need some long-term core players to rally around.

As to point 1, the Rays haven’t won a championship, but they’ve come very close, making the World Series twice in the 16 years since they got good.  So I would not say you can’t win a WS that way.  

The second point I’d make is that the Rays have signed quite a few players long term.  Longoria played 10 years there, Kiermaier played 10 years there, Zobrist played 9 years there, Crawford played 9 years there.  They signed Franco for 11 years, though unforeseen circumstances may keep that contract from being fulfilled.  

As to having long-term players to rally around, I agree that’s nice to have.   I expect the O’s to do some of that, if the players are willing.  It takes two to tango.  

 

[Moose Milligan]

Middle of the pack is probably where we end up.

I honestly find the conversations about spending and payroll exhausting.  I like to think of the people on this board as being smart baseball fans and smart baseball fans know that it's not always about how much you spend.  

Ultimately, I think the spending debates are somewhat based on emotions.  People just want to know that ownership is invested and they see spending money as a sign of "Hey, we want to win, too, we hear you."  Which is why JA was always crucified on here, no one on OH thought that he wanted to win because he didn't spend.  The more it gets talked about on here, the less I think the conversations are about spending money for talent and they're more about having the reassurance from ownership that they're doing everything they can to win.  It never felt that way under JA and for good reason.

I don't care what we spend as long as we're winning.  Ideally, I'd like to spend enough to extend guys like Holliday and Gunnar but that's not always realistic.  

Edited February 8 by Moose Milligan

[interloper]

7 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Middle of the pack is probably where we end up.

I honestly find the conversations about spending and payroll exhausting.  I like to think of the people on this board as being smart baseball fans and smart baseball fans know that it's not always about how much you spend.  

Ultimately, I think the spending debates are somewhat based on emotions.  People just want to know that ownership is invested and they see spending money as a sign of "Hey, we want to win, too, we hear you."  Which is why JA was always crucified on here, no one on OH thought that he wanted to win because he didn't spend.  The more it gets talked about on here, the less I think the conversations are about spending money for talent and really having the reassurance from ownership that they're doing everything they can to win.  It never felt that way under JA and for good reason.

I don't care what we spend as long as we're winning.  Ideally, I'd like to spend enough to extend guys like Holliday and Gunnar but that's not always realistic.  

Yeah it seems like kind of a pointless conversation topic at this stage. It's like the Cease thread - after awhile, it's either they trade for him or they don't. Either they spend on payroll or they don't. We just have to wait and see. 

[Frobby]

I have a friend who follows the Orioles closely who believes that the “Rays model” is absolutely correct because it forces the team to rely on younger, improving players rather than older, declining players.   He thinks it’s a trap to give lots of money to players for their post-30 seasons.  

[Moose Milligan]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I have a friend who follows the Orioles closely who believes that the “Rays model” is absolutely correct because it forces the team to rely on younger, improving players rather than older, declining players.   He thinks it’s a trap to give lots of money to players for their post-30 seasons.  

I think your friend is correct.  It sucks to give up players that you become emotionally attached to in their post 30 seasons...and as Orioles fans we should be well steeped in "an old 30" but that's an exception, not a rule.  

Yeah, some guys can continue to produce well into their 30s but at what risk?  Gotta choose wisely.  

 

[Bemorewins]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I feel like you are conflating or combining two points:

1.  The O’s can’t win a championship without signing some players to long term contracts.  See: the Rays.

2.  Even if the team doesn’t win a championship, fans need some long-term core players to rally around.

As to point 1, the Rays haven’t won a championship, but they’ve come very close, making the World Series twice in the 16 years since they got good.  So I would not say you can’t win a WS that way.  

The second point I’d make is that the Rays have signed quite a few players long term.  Longoria played 10 years there, Kiermaier played 10 years there, Zobrist played 9 years there, Crawford played 9 years there.  They signed Franco for 11 years, though unforeseen circumstances may keep that contract from being fulfilled.  

As to having long-term players to rally around, I agree that’s nice to have.   I expect the O’s to do some of that, if the players are willing.  It takes two to tango.  

 

I hear what you are saying and I appreciate the difference of opinion that we have.

Maybe I’m hopeful my against hope. But @Moose Milligan is on to something in terms of it being emotional (at least for me personally. We invest so much into the team (time, money on tix and merch, etc.)

I absolutely want an owner to be extremely invested in the team’s success with me. That’s what we have in Steve B and the Ravens. He may not make a lot of public appearances but you can tell from the top down that org wants to win and is doing everything it can to achieve that outcome. Under Angelos, (for the most part with the father after the 90’s and all the way with the son) it seems that there were other priorities that superseded winning. (Daddy’s ego and idiotic behavior; Son’s greed)

[RZNJ]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I have a friend who follows the Orioles closely who believes that the “Rays model” is absolutely correct because it forces the team to rely on younger, improving players rather than older, declining players.   He thinks it’s a trap to give lots of money to players for their post-30 seasons.  

You’re friends with SportsGuy in real life?

[btdart20]

3 hours ago, Bemorewins said:

I have no idea what the payroll will be going forward with the ownership transfer. I don’t believe it can get any lower or worse from the side of lack of competitive interest and ownership support to the baseball ops.

I have hope that the new ownership will support Elias and company in a much more respectable way. 

If we can even get to a mid-tier level payroll, that is so much higher than where we are now and where we have been since 2018. That gives me some hope that we can resign some of our homegrown stars and have some faces of the franchise to build around, succeed with, and market for the longer term.

I agree with everything you say here.  For the last piece, that also means that we can't sign a FA every off-season as a rule of thumb (as I've seen other posters suggest) to fill a need or be more competitive.  It means the pipeline will always be important if we want to be competitive.  Aka, what Frobby's friend was saying about the post-30 pool of players.

[Bemorewins]

Another thing about payroll that I think is relevant to this discussion is to ponder the question: When was the last time that a team ranked as low as we are in payroll won a World Series? 

Has there been a minimum threshold historically?

[btdart20]

14 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Another thing about payroll that I think is relevant to this discussion is to ponder the question: When was the last time that a team ranked as low as we are in payroll won a World Series? 

Has there been a minimum threshold historically?

2008 Tampa?  

[LookinUp]

I think our payroll will look like a bell curve that starts well below the median payroll, goes up to a top 10 payroll, and then goes down some closer to the median. It won't be flat though. It'll be driven by talent.

In other words, normal in a post Angelos world.

[Big Mac]

44 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

2008 Tampa?  

They did not win the world series. 

[btdart20]

41 minutes ago, Big Mac said:

They did not win the world series. 

That rules them out...  2015 KC?

[Bemorewins]

1 hour ago, btdart20 said:

2008 Tampa?  

That’s along time ago! That was in the era before things like stat cast, launch angles, bullpen games. Think of how much the game has changed since then.

[Bemorewins]

26 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

That rules them out...  2015 KC?

Was KC as low as we are now in payroll?