David Rubenstein 2024

[emmett16]

21 minutes ago, deward said:

Division titles, playoff series, tons of games. 

Rays have not won much. They havnt been dominant.  They’ve been a solid team with a crap stadium that’s very far away from their fan base.  Located somewhere else, they’d have solid attendance.  
 

The A’s on the other hand are a bad example for your argument.  After a dominant 70s (with titles) from 1981-1993 they were one of the most popular teams in the country and never averaged less than 11th in the league in attendance (finishing 2nd twice, 3rd twice, and 4th twice) while making it to 3 WS & winning 2.  

[emmett16]

2 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

??? I think you lost me on that one.

The Detroit Lions hosted the NFL draft last month and broke the record for attendance. 

Can, I think you and I are on the same side of the coin when it comes to the importance of retaining great/superstar/franchise players.

For whatever reason @emmett16 seems to be opposed to it. I remember one post he had about Elias/Sig possibly being able to use AI in order to figure out some sort of star profile for 15/16 year olds so that they could continue to replicate and replace the Hendersons/Rutschmans/Hollidays/etc.

I’m not 100% against it.  I just think the value proposition is low.  You will only get 2 or 3 good years form an extension before the asset starts to diminish.  That handcuffs you for the future.  If the player takes a deal  that’s not in his best interest, sure.  But that isn’t going to happen.   Long expensive FA contracts seldom work.  Adley & Gunnar are going to require long and expensive contracts.  Therefore I don’t think it’s in the best interest of the team to do so.  The long term viability of the team is on their ability to scout and develop.  

[Bemorewins]

8 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

I’m not 100% against it.  I just think the value proposition is low.  You will only get 2 or 3 good years form an extension before the asset starts to diminish.  That handcuffs you for the future.  If the player takes a deal  that’s not in his best interest, sure.  But that isn’t going to happen.   Long expensive FA contracts seldom work.  Adley & Gunnar are going to require long and expensive contracts.  Therefore I don’t think it’s in the best interest of the team to do so.  The long term viability of the team is on their ability to scout and develop.  

Mookie Betts has gotten more than 2/3 good years on his extension. Look at what Boston has been (and will most probably continue to be) since they traded him. Same for Bryce Harper with Philly (despite his injuries).

I agree that for almost all longer term contracts, you will get diminishing returns toward the back end. But that’s the cost of doing business in modern day MLB. If Elias and Sig are as good at drafting and developing as they appear to be, by the time Gunnar and Adley begin to age/deteriorate, we should already have other players to help buffer them. 

I just don’t think that it is in any way realistic to think that you can continue to replace “special” talent. Nor do I think that it is helpful for any orgs relationship with their fanbase to continue to operate on the cheap. It’s not like the fans will be given a discount if the org spends less money. The fans don’t benefit from an owner not spending, it’s the owners profit margin solely that benefits in that scenario.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Bemorewins said:

Mookie Betts has gotten more than 2/3 good years on his extension. Look at what Boston has been (and will most probably continue to be) since they traded him. Same for Bryce Harper with Philly (despite his injuries).

I agree that for almost all longer term contracts, you will get diminishing returns toward the back end. But that’s the cost of doing business in modern day MLB. If Elias and Sig are as good at drafting and developing as they appear to be, by the time Gunnar and Adley begin to age/deteriorate, we should already have other players to help buffer them. 

I just don’t think that it is in any way realistic to think that you can continue to replace “special” talent. Nor do I think that it is helpful for any orgs relationship with their fanbase to continue to operate on the cheap. It’s not like the fans will be given a discount if the org spends less money. The fans don’t benefit from an owner not spending, it’s the owners profit margin solely that benefits in that scenario.

The ones that start earlier are generally a better bet than the ones that start later and for goodness sake if they opt out let them walk!

[Bemorewins]

21 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

Rays have not won much. They havnt been dominant.  They’ve been a solid team with a crap stadium that’s very far away from their fan base.  Located somewhere else, they’d have solid attendance.  
 

The A’s on the other hand are a bad example for your argument.  After a dominant 70s (with titles) from 1981-1993 they were one of the most popular teams in the country and never averaged less than 11th in the league in attendance (finishing 2nd twice, 3rd twice, and 4th twice) while making it to 3 WS & winning 2.  

When they A’s had that kind of attendance and were winning pennants in the early 90’s, they had stars. When they they started with “budget ball” in the 2000’s even though they had some good teams, they struggled to recapture the interest/engagement of the market.

[Bemorewins]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

The ones that start earlier are generally a better bet than the ones that start later and for goodness sake if they opt out let them walk!

If Gunnar and/or Adley are Orioles for 10 years that’s all I can really ask for/reasonably expect. If they opt out or if their extensions run out and they sign elsewhere then so be it.
 

But what I don’t want to see is some/many of their best years spent with another franchise (like Machado). I don’t want to see the Orioles to continue to be run like a second rate franchise (like they were for most of the Angelos’s tenure). I don’t want to see them being run as a “farm team” for the serious franchises who are willing to do what it takes in order to win championship(s).

People keep saying it’s about market size but I see the Saint Louis Cardinals as an example that it’s about ownership and the ability of the org to engage it’s fanbase in a way that compels them to come and keep coming (and buy merch). The Orioles are finally rid of the Angelos stench and have a great thing going right now. I would hate for them to mess it up trying to be cheap.

Thankfully, I see nothing (so far) to indicate that Rubenstein is intending to do that.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

But what I don’t want to see is some/many of their best years spent with another franchise (like Machado).

 

If Machado had signed a long term deal with the O's, let's say signed through 2025, would you have been in favor of keeping him or trading him during the rebuild?

[Roll Tide]

4 hours ago, Bemorewins said:

I know that we have a difference of opinion as it relates to player retention/extensions.

But I think we both can acknowledge that the name on the back of the jersey impacts winning (i.e. star/great players).

I can name different models when extensions/big time FA signing have lead to increased attendance/marketplace relevance/fan engagement.

How many models/examples can you name when a team had constant turnover, didn’t retain superstars/had an ongoing rebuild/reload/whatever you want to call it; and that lead to robust community engagement, high fan attendance/ticket sales, and growing merch sales?

Here is the thing I don’t want to happen. I don’t want them to extend the wrong player because the agent of the right one refuses. It’s been discussed here already whether it’s a good investment to extend Adley due to his age and position. 
 

All in all I’d agree I’d like to see some real sign that the spending philosophy has changed under the new ownership group.

[Bemorewins]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If Machado had signed a long term deal with the O's, let's say signed through 2025, would you have been in favor of keeping him or trading him during the rebuild?

At the time, after the 2016 season, when it became clear that we weren't going to resign him, I was favor of trading him because the cupboards were so bare through the organization. However, if we would have say extended him in 2014, I would have been in favor of keeping him and trying to build a winner around him.

I think the question that you raise is a great one. But I see our org situations now compared to then as totally different. 2012 felt very accidental. And every season under Buck felt like we were willing to cut any corners we could in order to get him that one World Series which was missing from his resume. It never felt sustainable or that there was a vision/long term plan for the franchise. This feels and appears to be WAY different.

[Bemorewins]

7 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Here is the thing I don’t want to happen. I don’t want them to extend the wrong player because the agent of the right one refuses. It’s been discussed here already whether it’s a good investment to extend Adley due to his age and position. 
 

All in all I’d agree I’d like to see some real sign that the spending philosophy has changed under the new ownership group.

I can see Adley aging on the Posey curve. He probably has until age 35 before he will hang up the spikes/be a negative valued baseball player.

IMO Adley's defense is average, he has a below average throwing arm. But his bat is excellent. And there is no arguing that his presence has made a tremendous impact since the very first day that he stepped onto a Major League field for the O's.

Gunnar may not extend because of Boras and the same may turn out to be the case for Holliday. But that should not preclude us from locking up the other guys who prove to be special. Right now Adley is that IMO and Westburg appears to be working his way toward that.

But even if we do not extend our own guys, we should bring in others who will sign and impact winning in a positive manner. 

Again IMO, not spending and cutting cost is not the way to go for franchise viability/growth. Customers/fans are more informed than ever and have more entertainment options than ever. Your message to them cannot be come out to see the Orioles just because we are the Orioles or "Hey we will probably win more than we lose (like the Rays) but won't make any real efforts to seize opportunities (by spending) when they are there."

San Diego doesn't have a problem with fan engagement/attendance even though they don't/haven't won big because they have captured the attention of that market and become relevant by signing star players. And showing their fanbase that they are invested.

I am not saying that I want to be like the Padres, but I certainly want the O's to be/remain relevant in this market (like they are now). Every time I take my kids to games, they are excited to go (in particular my youngest). That is how you capture the next generation of O's fans - by being relevant. 3 years ago I couldn't get my kids to go to an Orioles game no matter what! Conversely, I have never had that issue with the Ravens. They've always wanted to attend their games (even practices/training camp).

[emmett16]

52 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

If Gunnar and/or Adley are Orioles for 10 years that’s all I can really ask for/reasonably expect. If they opt out or if their extensions run out and they sign elsewhere then so be it.
 

But what I don’t want to see is some/many of their best years spent with another franchise (like Machado). I don’t want to see the Orioles to continue to be run like a second rate franchise (like they were for most of the Angelos’s tenure). I don’t want to see them being run as a “farm team” for the serious franchises who are willing to do what it takes in order to win championship(s).

People keep saying it’s about market size but I see the Saint Louis Cardinals as an example that it’s about ownership and the ability of the org to engage it’s fanbase in a way that compels them to come and keep coming (and buy merch). The Orioles are finally rid of the Angelos stench and have a great thing going right now. I would hate for them to mess it up trying to be cheap.

Thankfully, I see nothing (so far) to indicate that Rubenstein is intending to do that.

Cardinals fans are up in arms with their ownership & FO for their inability to develop bats.  They’ve been failing for years.  They are a smart fanbase and were built on being successful for multiple decades due to their ability to develop players.   

[Bemorewins]

4 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

Cardinals fans are up in arms with their ownership & FO for their inability to develop bats.  They’ve been failing for years.  They are a smart fanbase and were built on being successful for multiple decades due to their ability to develop players.   

Yes that is true now. But just about every org (even the Yankees who were 82-80 last year) will have downturns/down seasons. The fans may be upset (and they should be) but they are still invested/engaged and still attend games. Which has allowed their franchise to not develop well throughout the years, but also buy/extend guys like Holliday, Goldschmidt, Arenado, Carpenter, Wainwright, etc.

They did not develop all those great players and then all those guys walk. Yes, they did that with Pujos. But they retained/resigned many others. AND have maintain a very competitive payroll (especially high for their market size).

[Roll Tide]

56 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

I can see Adley aging on the Posey curve. He probably has until age 35 before he will hang up the spikes/be a negative valued baseball player.

IMO Adley's defense is average, he has a below average throwing arm. But his bat is excellent. And there is no arguing that his presence has made a tremendous impact since the very first day that he stepped onto a Major League field for the O's.

Gunnar may not extend because of Boras and the same may turn out to be the case for Holliday. But that should not preclude us from locking up the other guys who prove to be special. Right now Adley is that IMO and Westburg appears to be working his way toward that.

But even if we do not extend our own guys, we should bring in others who will sign and impact winning in a positive manner. 

Again IMO, not spending and cutting cost is not the way to go for franchise viability/growth. Customers/fans are more informed than ever and have more entertainment options than ever. Your message to them cannot be come out to see the Orioles just because we are the Orioles or "Hey we will probably win more than we lose (like the Rays) but won't make any real efforts to seize opportunities (by spending) when they are there."

San Diego doesn't have a problem with fan engagement/attendance even though they don't/haven't won big because they have captured the attention of that market and become relevant by signing star players. And showing their fanbase that they are invested.

I am not saying that I want to be like the Padres, but I certainly want the O's to be/remain relevant in this market (like they are now). Every time I take my kids to games, they are excited to go (in particular my youngest). That is how you capture the next generation of O's fans - by being relevant. 3 years ago I couldn't get my kids to go to an Orioles game no matter what! Conversely, I have never had that issue with the Ravens. They've always wanted to attend their games (even practices/training camp).

Fair enough …but Gunner is the bat you need to find a way to keep. They will need to be aggressive to get it done. 

[Bemorewins]

Just now, Roll Tide said:

Fair enough …but Gunner is the bat you need to find a way to keep. They will need to be aggressive to get it done. 

I agree in that I would be over the moon to extend Gunnar and hope that they do everything that they can. But based on past history Boras usually does not play ball. 

[Roll Tide]

1 hour ago, Bemorewins said:

I agree in that I would be over the moon to extend Gunnar and hope that they do everything that they can. But based on past history Boras usually does not play ball. 

True and we know Scott is a gamer. He he claims they’ve spoken.