Should Rubenstein relieve Mike Elias of his duties?

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

We don't know that until Rubinstein indicates the money is there to sign -players or free agents long term and Elias doesn't do it, I will assume the money isn't there.  Friedman adjusted quite well going from a $60 million payroll in Tampa to a $300 million payroll in LA.  I think Elias will be able to make the transition although with a lower cap.  I don't see any 10 year contracts in the O's future (although who knows Gunnar might be the exception).

Supposedly Angelos provided Elias what he asked for when it came to payroll.

We also don't know how much, if at all, Rubenstein will be increasing payroll.

I guarantee you Rubenstein won't be saying that Elias isn't spending as much as he authorized and Elias won't criticize payroll in public.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, 1fingerwillie said:

You don't think he will ever get there. All of your evidence is based on his work under an owner who insisted on one of the lowest payrolls in the ML. 

That's speculation.

The drastic cuts to payroll was part of Elias' plan that was presented to ownership.

 

[Aristotelian]

35 minutes ago, LookitsPuck said:

I mean, are we going to act that a team with a mediocre bullpen, a so so rotation, bad defense and an inconsistent offense couldn’t pull a 2007 Mets, 2009 Tigers, 2011 Red Sox, 2011 Braves, or even the 2021 Mets? Because it was definitely possible. There’s a reason why there were so many acquisitions, because the O’s were flawed out the wazoo.

Most of the acquisitions were to help us in the playoffs. Of course they help us make the playoffs. But yes if it makes you and corn happy, they improved our chances from 98 to 98.5%. 

[LookitsPuck]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Supposedly Angelos provided Elias what he asked for when it came to payroll.

We also don't know how much, if at all, Rubenstein will be increasing payroll.

I guarantee you Rubenstein won't be saying that Elias isn't spending as much as he authorized and Elias won't criticize payroll in public.

Supposedly. But we also don’t know about contract obligations beyond a year if Angelos always intended to sell. He probably wanted to keep the books as skinny as possible when it came to contract lengths. And understandably so.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, LookitsPuck said:

Supposedly. But we also don’t know about contract obligations beyond a year if Angelos always intended to sell. He probably wanted to keep the books as skinny as possible when it came to contract lengths. And understandably so.

I still don't get the logic of that.

No way a billion dollar deal is going to be scuttled because a free agent pitcher is signed for a four year contract. 

[LookitsPuck]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

I still don't get the logic of that.

No way a billion dollar deal is going to be scuttled because a free agent pitcher is signed for a four year contract. 

Never said it wouldn’t happen, but valuation matters as well as ability to spend by new ownership. So it’s entirely possible that perhaps there’s a cheaper deal if, say, there are more expenditures. 

Also, Elias has been through this rodeo before with tanking and cutting costs with Luhnow. It’s a playbook used by so many. But we also have evidence of the Astros spending once they started winning and Lo and behold we even saw that this year. Payroll went from $70ish to around $100m. That’s a big jump.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, LookitsPuck said:

Never said it wouldn’t happen, but valuation matters as well as ability to spend by new ownership. So it’s entirely possible that perhaps there’s a cheaper deal if, say, there are more expenditures. 

Also, Elias has been through this rodeo before with tanking and cutting costs with Luhnow. It’s a playbook used by so many. But we also have evidence of the Astros spending once they started winning and Lo and behold we even saw that this year. Payroll went from $70ish to around $100m. That’s a big jump.

Oh, I'm not even saying John might not have been that stupid to believe it might.

As for payroll going up by 30M?

How much has revenue been going up?  Does that level of spending lead to the same level of profitability?

 

I do think it's likely payroll will go up.  But it isn't a lock.

[LookitsPuck]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Oh, I'm not even saying John might not have been that stupid to believe it might.

As for payroll going up by 30M?

How much has revenue been going up?  Does that level of spending lead to the same level of profitability?

 

I do think it's likely payroll will go up.  But it isn't a lock.

All we know is season ticket sales were supposedly up 70%. And attendance is also up this year. We also know that when they were winning before, Peter had the payroll around $165m on the top end. I reckon unless Rubenstein and his VCs want to inject capital into the team, that the top end is probably $200m when accounting for inflation.

But there’s no way they double payroll next year. Elias will probably be extremely methodical about it. I don’t think there’s a Texas Rangers splurge in this org/ownership. Maybe Rubenstein proves me wrong, but I strongly doubt it. I just want to see spending on FAs, extensions for young players, and some 3-4 year FA deals as well as international spending outside of Latin countries. We don’t need to be the Dodgers, Yanks, or Mets. 

[1fingerwillie]

9 hours ago, Baseball fandom said:

But many including myself hated that trade and early results so far certainly looks bad. 

I am guessing, though, that your expectation was that Rogers would help this year. I expect ME's expectations were that any contribution by Rogers in 24 was gravy.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, 1fingerwillie said:

I am guessing, though, that your expectation was that Rogers would help this year. I expect ME's expectations were that any contribution by Rogers in 24 was gravy.

I don't think he was expected to be a downgrade and optioned.

[1fingerwillie]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

That's speculation.

The drastic cuts to payroll was part of Elias' plan that was presented to ownership.

 

I think Elias presented the best plan he could, understanding that he was never going to get money from the Angelos family.  Are you suggesting that Elias purposely tanked the team for a period to get picks when Angelos was willing to give him more money?

[1fingerwillie]

28 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think he was expected to be a downgrade and optioned.

Downgrade on who?

I expect that you are right in that they never expected to option him. 

Edited August 30 by 1fingerwillie
spelling

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, 1fingerwillie said:

Downgrade on who?

I expect that you are right in that they never expected to option him. That doesn't make anything about my post untrue.

Whatever warm body they were going to throw out there as the #5.  Irvin, Povich, whomever.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, 1fingerwillie said:

I think Elias presented the best plan he could, understanding that he was never going to get money from the Angelos family.  Are you suggesting that Elias purposely tanked the team for a period to get picks when Angelos was willing to give him more money?

Huh?

How did I say anything close to that?

I think Angelos was super interested in a rebuilding plan that included slashing payroll as low as possible.

I do think that for the hard tank portion of the rebuild Elias would not have spent appreciably more money if it had been available to him.

[1fingerwillie]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Whatever warm body they were going to throw out there as the #5.  Irvin, Povich, whomever.

But they are both still here? They didn't give anything up from a pitching perspective is my point. But yes I am sure they expected that he would be better than Irvin was at the time of the trade.