Jump to content

Worse case scenario for a failed "blow up"?

Sports Guy

By Sports Guy
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

Sports Guy Hangout Grand Counsel

Sports Guy

Posted
Posted

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
clapdiddy Hangout Grand Counsel

clapdiddy

Posted
Posted

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
nadecir Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

nadecir

Posted
Posted
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
PoorMike Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

PoorMike

Posted
Posted
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
NewMarketSean Hangout Grand Counsel

NewMarketSean

Posted
Posted
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
RShack Hangout Grand Counsel

RShack

Posted
Posted
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
NewMarketSean Hangout Grand Counsel

NewMarketSean

Posted
Posted
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
Sports Guy Hangout Grand Counsel

Sports Guy

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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
Fan4Life Hangout Veteran Council

Fan4Life

Posted
Posted
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
RShack Hangout Grand Counsel

RShack

Posted
Posted
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
NewMarketSean Hangout Grand Counsel

NewMarketSean

Posted
Posted
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
NewMarketSean Hangout Grand Counsel

NewMarketSean

Posted
Posted
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.

Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • DrungoHazewood
      Time Gunnar's triple

      By DrungoHazewood · Posted

      Oh, I don't know. I thought when accusing someone of wild malpractice over possibly, maybe, slightly speeding up highlights that kind of opened the door to a little goofy exaggeration.
    • interloper
      The A's Series

      By interloper · Posted

      I was going to post something about this after reading about that on MLBTR this morning. That gives me a lot of hope for Bradish if this kid can come back from a UCL sprain and throw 103. Obviously, reliever vs. starter so who knows. But uplifting to read nonetheless. 
    • DrungoHazewood
      Colton Cowser 2024

      By DrungoHazewood · Posted

      Hollocher hit almost exclusively 2nd in the order. The Cubs' 3rd hitters (and it was the Cubs, not the Indians as I previously stated) were mostly Marty Krug, Zeb Terry, and John Kelleher. Krug was awful for a 1922 3rd-place hitter, with an 83 OPS+ in his only season as a MLB regular, but he only struck out 43 times in 524 PAs. Terry was worse, OPS+ing 74, but with just 16 Ks in 571 PAs. And Kelleher was the worst of the bunch, OPS+ing 60, while striking out 14 times in 222 PAs. Cubs manager Reindeer Bill Killefer stuck hard and fast to the old rule of thumb that the catcher should bat 8th, even if it's Bob O'Farrell and he hit .324 with an .880 OPS. Ray Grimes had a 1.014 OPS and batted cleanup. But Hack Miller and his .899 OPS batted mostly 6th. Statz wasn't a terrible leadoff hitter, was one of only a couple players who had a SB% higher than 50%, but was 6th among their regulars in OBP. That's as bad a bunch of #3 hitters as I've seen in a while, yet the Cubs finished 80-74-2. Just goes to show you batting order doesn't really matter. Anyway, back to the main point... yes, I'm sure some of Hollocher's CS were busted hit-and-runs. But nobody that regularly batted behind him struck out in even 7% of PAs so they shoulda been putting the ball in play the vast majority of the time.    
    • interloper
      Time Gunnar's triple

      By interloper · Posted

      Bobby needs to git gud. 
    • Frobby
      4/25: Bowie Wins, Only Team Above .500

      By Frobby · Posted

      How many people actually said they were one of the greatest teams ever?   They did hit the snot out of the ball the first 9 games of the year, mostly in a 6 game series in a very hitter-friendly ball park against a bad pitching staff.  That said, they’re still second in the league in runs per game.  Their pitching has been problematic, yielding 6.50 runs per game.  
    • RZNJ
      Time Gunnar's triple

      By RZNJ · Posted

      Gunnar’s base running is in the 99th percentile.  That mess is in the 98th percentile.
    • interloper
      Speculating on how the O's handle the pitching logjam

      By interloper · Posted

      Yeah, the highlighted section here is really why I agree that the O's will look to minimize losing players to waivers just yet. Things could blow up on them pretty quick. There's a ton of risk with these moves, but they have to find out. The best way to do that is to utilize the options for Akin and Tate, IMO. We'll see! 

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...