Jump to content

Worse case scenario for a failed "blow up"?


Sports Guy

Recommended Posts

I asked this in another thread but it seems to have been overlooked.

Many people are saying that blowing it up doesn't mean we will win long term. I am not disagreeing with that. No guarantees.

However, let's say that is exactly what happens...Let's say we blow things up and it doesn't end up paying off.....What have we lost?

What is the penalty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 201
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I honestly can't see any penalty for blowing things up. Right now, we're not going to turn this organization around via free agency, because no player in their right mind would come here and the current crop of players is a very bad mix.

There is no "quick fix" for this team. It will be a slow process that would hopefully be less painful by an infusion of young talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the point....We blow it up and end up back where we are right now...Pathetic.

So, what do we actually have to lose then?

We will lose a lot of dollars off the payroll even in a worse case scenario. And that is a good thing. Use that saved money for scouting, international player development, and for paying above slot bonus money to draftees, and the savings in payroll dollars becomes a very good thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked this in another thread but it seems to have been overlooked.

Many people are saying that blowing it up doesn't mean we will win long term. I am not disagreeing with that. No guarantees.

However, let's say that is exactly what happens...Let's say we blow things up and it doesn't end up paying off.....What have we lost?

What is the penalty?

Worst case is that we draw 15k a game for several years, no one watches on tv, the Nats are dissatisfied with their share of MASN revenues and sue their way out of the partnership, MASN ceases to exist, the team hemorrages money and moves to vegas in 2015.

It's unlikely to happen, but that would be the worst case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worst case is that we draw 15k a game for several years, no one watches on tv, the Nats are dissatisfied with their share of MASN revenues and sue their way out of the partnership, MASN ceases to exist, the team hemorrages money and moves to vegas in 2015.

It's unlikely to happen, but that would be the worst case.

If the O's still stink in 2015 they can move to Vegas for all I care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say we blow things up and it doesn't end up paying off.....What have we lost? What is the penalty?

What we have lost is the opportunity to finally do what successful franchises do, and instead add another decade of losing. I'm still waiting to hear a single compelling reason why we should do that. So far, the big answers seem to be (a) to honor your goofy scheme, and (b) because everybody's frustrated and mad.

There is zero point in replacing one form of bad management with another. We need to get past bad management and instead to what good franchises do. And good franchises simply don't do what you want to do. Fantasy teams do, but we're talking Real Baseball here, not Pretend Baseball...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we have lost is the opportunity to finally do what successful franchises do, and instead add another decade of losing. I'm still waiting to hear a single compelling reason why we should do that. So far, the big answers seem to be (a) to honor your goofy scheme, and (b) because everybody's frustrated and mad.

There is zero point in replacing one form of bad management with another. We need to get past bad management and instead to what good franchises do. And good franchises simply don't do what you want to do. Fantasy teams do, but we're talking Real Baseball here, not Pretend Baseball...

Huh?

So what do you want to do? Keep doing more of the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we have lost is the opportunity to finally do what successful franchises do, and instead add another decade of losing. I'm still waiting to hear a single compelling reason why we should do that. So far, the big answers seem to be (a) to honor your goofy scheme, and (b) because everybody's frustrated and mad.

There is zero point in replacing one form of bad management with another. We need to get past bad management and instead to what good franchises do. And good franchises simply don't do what you want to do. Fantasy teams do, but we're talking Real Baseball here, not Pretend Baseball...

You honestly make no sense.

What is MORE LIKELY to happen:

Aging, declining players get better or younger, talented players grow together and perform well?

What is the MORE LIKELY scenario there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You honestly make no sense.

What is MORE LIKELY to happen:

Aging, declining players get better or younger, talented players grow together and perform well?

What is the MORE LIKELY scenario there.

Isn't the question whether we should be trading ALL of our talented players to get younger and one day in the the future better (IE: Blow it up), versus trading a few/some of are talented players and keeping some?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? So what do you want to do? Keep doing more of the same?

If you read things around here, you know what I want to do. Here's what it is:

Realize that successful franchises are successful franchises because they have highly talented guys at GM and because the owner lets those highly talented guys do their thing. THAT is the secret to success.

Silly one-dimensional trade-everybody strategies are not what successful franchises do. That is not how they get and stay successful. A high quality FO is what does it, not SG's simplistic day-trader schemes. Bad management will screw up anything and everything, no matter what their scheme is.

The key thing is not some sound-bite scheme, the key thing is the quality of the FO. Why is this not obvious to everybody? There is no counter-example to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the question whether we should be trading ALL of our talented players to get younger and one day in the the future better (IE: Blow it up), versus trading a few/some of are talented players and keeping some?

Who are you going to trade and who are you going to keep?

IMO, Roberts, Tejada SHOULD be traded and Bedard should be traded if he won't sign an extension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read things around here, you know what I want to do. Here's what it is:

Realize that successful franchises are successful franchises because they have highly talented guys at GM and because the owner lets those highly talented guys do their thing. THAT is the secret to success.

Silly one-dimensional trade-everybody strategies are not what successful franchises do. That is not how they get and stay successful. A high quality FO is what does it, not SG's simplistic day-trader schemes. Bad management will screw up anything and everything, no matter what their scheme is.

The key thing is not some sound-bite scheme, the key thing is the quality of the FO. Why is this not obvious to everybody? There is no counter-example to this.

Good FO's make trades. Especially when you cant sign any FA that is worth anything. No one will come here unless its in a trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • Longehagen still thinks Westburg is so bad that he needs a defensive caddy.  I’ll have to take his in person scouting of defense with a grain of salt.
    • Why would anyone downvote the OP?    Maybe we need a “K+” stat reflecting player K/9 divided by league average K/9, in order to compare pitchers across eras.       
    • Longenhagen went to 2023 JP Crawford as one picture of a Jackson Holliday path to a 5-win season.
    • The average K rate in 2023 was 8.7. (all pitchers) That's the fourth highest average behind 2020, 2021, and 2019. The 10th highest average is from 2014 at 7.7.    
    • Interesting guy. He's not built like a typical SP, 6'1" 205. However, he misses bats. In both college and in MiLB he averages a little over 11 K/9. Now he walks a few too many dudes, Bowie was 6.0 BB/9, but the stuff appears to play. Of note, walks were not as big of an issue when he was with Tampa Organization, pre-TJS. There is no advanced data from Baseball Savant but if he's throwing 4 pitches effectively and touching 98 post surgery, that's a big plus. I would love to see his advanced metrics from this spring. Gotta believe he starts in Bowie and will get to Norfolk soon if he's successful. I wonder if he will be on a strict pitch count.
    • It doesn’t seem that inconsistent to me.  Take what Longenhagen said: “He also isn’t currently a big league-quality shortstop defender and definitely isn’t better than Gunnar Henderson is right now….he’s talented enough to project as a suitable shortstop within the next couple of years.” For me, “suitable” doesn’t necessarily mean “good.”   It means adequate.   And you can find any number of bat-first adequate shortstops in the major leagues.  There’s one who just missed being unanimously elected to the Hall of Fame.  But in Holliday’s case, there’s a better SS on his team now, so I’m not sure he’s going to get the reps and experience to improve his play at SS in the next few years, so he may end up at 2B long term.  If so, that’s hardly the end of the world, for the Orioles or for him.  
    • That stat certainly shows how the game has changed over time, what are middle of the road K rates now rank as two of the top 10 in franchise history.  Something we all knew but this stat really highlights it, not sure why in the world it necessitated a down vote. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...