Do you trust AM

[Wind Rider]

No one has posted this and it speaks of your inability to convince others of the merits of your points when you resort to this.

Few teams in MLB operate in this manner and it is poor to advocate spending in this manner. This would involve LT commitments for free agents that would likely lead to losses when quality young players see substantial increases in pay. If the Os ramped up the payroll to $100M with LT commitments to Lackey, Holiday and other, what is going to happen in three years when Jones, Wieters, Riemold are getting substantial arbitration increases? Teams like the Tigers who have been spending above capacity due to a generous owner are now looking to shed contracts in the worst way - a prime example of what would happen if a team followed what you advocate.

I made that statement in response to this comment.

Only a crazy team or a rich team would be attempting to build a self-sustaining organization while forfeiting most of their high draft picks to sign expensive free agents. And smart teams don't blow their wad on poor win/dollar investments when they're not in a position to make that money back through playoff revenues.

Perhaps I took it incorrectly to mean we shouldn't spend what it takes to produce a winner.

[Lucky Jim]

Perhaps I took it incorrectly to mean we shouldn't spend what it takes to produce a winner.

Quality understatement.

[Mackus]

Getting back to the topic. I trust AM. It's Angelos I don't trust.

This is close to my feelings. I'm more trusting of Angelos now than I was a few years ago, but I can't feel completely at ease until we start spending some money. We're not at a point where we should be making huge splashes yet, so not spending this offseason won't necessarily mean that he's not willing to spend ever (although a few logically challenged people will be sure to take it that way), but if we aren't significantly upping the payroll over the next 3-4 seasons then I'll be upset.

I do think the recent signs point to it being likely Angelos will spend when we need him to. But I'll remain a bit skeptical of him until I see it.

[hoosiers]

This is close to my feelings. I'm more trusting of Angelos now than I was a few years ago, but I can't feel completely at ease until we start spending some money.

I expect most are in agreement here regarding AM and PA.

The issue with AM is that he has accumulated talent so well and has shown a propensity to do small things better and cheaper than many GMs. It's this next phase (building a winner) where there may be doubts of AM - that AM does not know how to spend the $ at his disposal to bridge the gaps in our quality young talent to create a competitive team. After all, perhaps in the back of AM's mind when he is going after premium talent is that he can get slightly lesser talent much cheaper. Not to mind that it appears to be contrary to AM's nature to overpay in $ or prospects for premium talent. AM needs to show he can spend big $ on LT commitments and trade quality prospects for all-star caliber players - there's not a lot of evidence of this in AM's past.

My hope is that AM has learned from his difficulties in fielding a competitive team in Chicago to spend what it takes (in $ and prospects) to acquire the appropriate talent to compete.

My feeling is AM has handled the first two years or so of his term here so well that he deserves the opportunity to handle the next phase.

[andrewrickli]

I expect most are in agreement here regarding AM and PA.

The issue with AM is that he has accumulated talent so well and has shown a propensity to do small things better and cheaper than many GMs. It's this next phase (building a winner) where there may be doubts of AM - that AM does not know how to spend the $ at his disposal to bridge the gaps in our quality young talent to create a competitive team. After all, perhaps in the back of AM's mind when he is going after premium talent is that he can get slightly lesser talent much cheaper. Not to mind that it appears to be contrary to AM's nature to overpay in $ or prospects for premium talent. AM needs to show he can spend big $ on LT commitments and trade quality prospects for all-star caliber players - there's not a lot of evidence of this in AM's past.

My hope is that AM has learned from his difficulties in fielding a competitive team in Chicago to spend what it takes (in $ and prospects) to acquire the appropriate talent to compete.

My feeling is AM has handled the first two years or so of his term here so well that he deserves the opportunity to handle the next phase.

Ditto to that. Give him a shot to complete Phase II

[tropicos]

Just stop and think for a sec, will you? We've got a ton of cheap kids who are gonna hit arb pretty soon and then they won't be cheap anymore. So you gotta plan on that, and if you ramp up payroll now, you won't have the money later when you need it. Spending money is one thing, but having it burn a hole in your pocket now so you don't have enough later is just dumb.

Agreed.

Something to keep in mind: just because we may have the resources, does not mean you spend it all at once. Fans know we have the capacity to increase our team payroll, and the one thought that comes to mind is to spend, spend, spend. But that is a slippery slope.

You are more likely to give out bad high-priced contracts if you run under the theory that you should spend a lot just because you have a lot of money on hand.

[Sports Guy]

I really wonder if people on here understand the difference between spending money for the sake of spending it vs spending money wisely.

[DrungoHazewood]

I really wonder if people on here understand the difference between spending money for the sake of spending it vs spending money wisely.

It appears there are some who equate payroll right now to the level of commitment to winning. Or that any owner worth his salt should strive to keep (revenue - expenses - payroll) <= 0 at all times, no matter what.

[JTrea81]

I really wonder if people on here understand the difference between spending money for the sake of spending it vs spending money wisely.

Well I don't think people are looking for us to sign the Paytons and Huffs in FA.

Most of those that want the Orioles to spend want them to do so on the top talent available, because that's the difference making talent.

MacPhail didn't spend a ton last offseason aside from the Markakis and Roberts extensions, but the money he did spend wasn't exactly spent wisely. We actually wanted to sign Redding or Looper for millions and wound up wasting hundreds of thousands on Adam Eaton. We've got Wigginton locked up to a contract where he cost more in terms of value than the Orioles were paying him in salary. Chad Moeller seemed to do more for Wieters and our pitchers than Zaun did and we paid him hundreds of thousands less and Rhyne Hughes isn't exactly a good return.

Hendrickson was probably his best FA signing and that was only when he put him in the role he was supposed to be in. Izturis, pretty much lived up to his reputation, so that was a solid signing as well.

So while he spent little, he got little bang for the buck for the money he spent. And that's what happens when you sign cheap players that you are counting on to overachieve to produce.

Had MacPhail aggressively pursued and landed say Teixeira, Burnett and Wolf for example, this team would have had a different result in 2009 and would look a whole lot different coming into 2010. That's the kind of talent that we need to be pursuing and signing.

[Lucky Jim]

It appears there are some who equate payroll right now to the level of commitment to winning. Or that any owner worth his salt should strive to keep (revenue - expenses - payroll) <= 0 at all times, no matter what.

It's called equilibrium, dude. Sheesh. Without it, the universe collapses (in a fit of conspiratorial paranoia.)

[DrungoHazewood]

Had MacPhail aggressively pursued and landed say Teixeira, Burnett and Wolf for example, this team would have had a different result in 2009 and would look a whole lot different coming into 2010.

Yes, it would be a lot different. The O's would be coming off a 75-80 win season where they still drew roughly 2M fans and were basically eliminated from contention in August. Their payroll would be much closer to maxed out, and the team probably would have been $20M+ in the red in 2009, assuming about $50-55M in annual expenditures for those three players. Instead of figuring out where to make a strategic strike in free agency this year or next, MacPhail would be trying to determine which of Jones, Pie, Weiters, Reimold, Matusz, Tillman, or others he'd have to dump to meet budget in 2012 or 2013. And he'd have a convienent and realistic excuse for not signing any top international talent, or going overslot on guys like Cameron Coffey (who'd be in college right now).

[amateurfan]

Yes, it would be a lot different. The O's would be coming off a 75-80 win season where they still drew roughly 2M fans and were basically eliminated from contention in August. Their payroll would be much closer to maxed out, and the team probably would have been $20M+ in the red in 2009, assuming about $50-55M in annual expenditures for those three players. Instead of figuring out where to make a strategic strike in free agency this year or next, MacPhail would be trying to determine which of Jones, Pie, Weiters, Reimold, Matusz, Tillman, or others he'd have to dump to meet budget in 2012 or 2013. And he'd have a convienent and realistic excuse for not signing any top international talent, or going overslot on guys like Cameron Coffey (who'd be in college right now).

The part in bold is the only part any of us knows enough information about to make any confident assertion. The rest of your post is complete conjecture, none of which you can prove. Furthermore, the reality may be that they have to, or ought to, move some of those players you listed no matter what in 2012.

[Lucky Jim]

The part in bold is the only part any of us knows enough information about to make any confident assertion. The rest of your post is complete conjecture, none of which you can prove. Furthermore, the reality may be that they have to, or ought to, move some of those players you listed no matter what in 2012.

It's not conjecture at all that the payroll would be close to maxed out if we paid $22+m to Teix, $17+m to Burnett and $8+m to Wolf.

[amateurfan]

It's not conjecture at all that the payroll would be close to maxed out if we paid $22+m to Teix, $17+m to Burnett and $8+m to Wolf.

Yes it is. What isn't conjecture is if you say that the payroll would be higher. Closer to maxed out is true, but close to maxed out is conjecture.

[DrungoHazewood]

The part in bold is the only part any of us knows enough information about to make any confident assertion. The rest of your post is complete conjecture, none of which you can prove. Furthermore, the reality may be that they have to, or ought to, move some of those players you listed no matter what in 2012.

Sure, it's conjecture. Just like the post I was responding to, that implied the team would be on the verge of greatness if only the front office wasn't so cheap.

I think it's not conjucture to say that moving players to clear payroll would be much more of a priority if they had $50M+ tied up in three players.