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

    • I would offer 4 years for $75-80 million. Trade for Lopez and the rotation would be more than set. 
    • Distinctly remember having a debate with @DrungoHazewoodseveral years ago about McGriff’s candidacy. I wonder if he’s changed his tune. 
    • It's only 2 pages if you take out duplicate posts and unrelated to Gibson posts. It is decibel going to be a long offseason.  Haha
    • He's currently #12. If he collects the entire contract, he will be in the top 2-3. Verlander likely still beats him with this next contract, but I agree it's still close. My point is that ToR starters are wickedly expensive and if Grayson becomes one, as many have postulated he might, having him early in his career when he is cost contained and thoughtfully dispositioning him when he becomes expensive will have an enormous impact on the finances of the ball club. I think mores than Adley and Gunnar but I could be very wrong. 
    • I’m willing to wait and be patient until the end of the offseason. What choice do any of us really have? But if the Orioles plan is to “nickel and dime” Free Agents, go bargain bin shopping, rely on prospect growth, and convince fans they are still in a rebuild with a “limited budget”; I think this will tell me all I need to know. The first name may have changed with ownership, but the last name is still the same. If we don’t spend big now with this minuscule payroll when will we ever? If arb is going to be used as a reason to not spend on Free Agency will it get better when our younger players get more expensive through raises? My greatest hope is that the Orioles actually care about their fans and MORE IMPORTANTLY about winning a championship. I know to each his/her own, but I will never be able to get behind billions budgeting and pinching pennies to make more millions.
    • It’s a huge problem in our society today that if something gets said three times on Twitter, people will take it for a fact.  Let’s just wait until we have an authoritative report.   
    • Reveal show had detail it was in-person meeting today (so Kim Ng couldn't be working on her Orioles trades).    Chipper had a travel-cancelling illness, and was replaced by some old Diamondbacks exec the current HOF president could get on short notice. Congrats Crime Dog.    I either forgot or never knew the detail from Harold Reynolds after the announcement it was Kirby Puckett who bestowed the nickname on a Japan tour.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...