Do you trust AM

[CSB Jack]

Since AM has become GM the orioles have gotten progressively worse' date=' while the yankees and redsox have gotten better. [/quote']

I disagree with this. Since AM became GM the Orioles' record has gotten progressively worse but I contend that the organization has gotten better. There was a lot of work that needed to be done to rebuild the whole system. There were a few pieces in place but the farm system was in shambles. Now there are a lot of young players who have reached the majors who provide real reason to expect improved performance of the ML club, and the minors are not depleted in the process of getting there.

What people often are arguing about is whether it is time to take some of this recently developed organizational quality and exchange it for some high priced established talent. Some say yes, some say no. So far AM has taken the approach of "not yet". But he also has indicated that he is ready to be a buyer of talent and not a seller.

My answer to the original question is yes, I trust Andy MacPhail to take the long view about building the organization. He will always be a little cautious about spending and making deals, but I expect him to get good value for the deals he makes. And I expect he will make some deals, this offseason and going forward as need be and as opportunities arise.

I also expect Angelos to authorize spending on talent - home grown or from oustide the organization - when AM says he thinks it is the right time and the right price.

[VTmook213]

That looks uncommonly like a mid-market team going through a second re-building phase.

Not to mention that the 10th place in 2007 actually represented a 94 million payroll.

Either way, two can play this game ...

94 - 9

95 - 4

96 - 2

97 - 2

98 - 1

99 - 8

00 - 3

Back when the Orioles weren't in a rebuilding phase, Angelos had no problem ponying up money. And I have no doubt that when we get to a situation where it makes sense to AM to go out and spend the big bucks on a bat, Angelos will allow him to do so.

[Wind Rider]

Most teams, in a rebuilding phase, have lower payrolls. You can continue to push your anti-Angelos agenda, or you could recognize that younger players have smaller contracts. Teams that rebuild have younger players. Younger players have small contracts. Therefore, teams that are rebuilding have small payrolls.

Blame Angelos all you want for his pre-AM meddling in baseball operations. But at least give him credit for keeping clear of the proceedings since AM has signed on. In the same manner, rail all you want about how the Orioles are going to have a small payroll next year, but also recognize that Angelos has spent over the course of his ownership.

He spent in his early years, certainly since 2002 he hasn't where he has baseball's third highest income. Or have we been rebuilding with young players from 2002 to 2008.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think he is zeroing in on an equilibrium position where he spends some, gives an appearance of trying to win but makes extreme earnings.

As for the Markakis, Roberts ,Wieters spending it sounds good but you have to look at the bottom line. From 2000 to 2009 25 clubs raised their salary an average of 94%, only two lowered theirs a lot, San Deigo at 20%, the Orioles 19%. Next year it will have been lowered by 40%. Markakis, Roberts, and Wieters makes a nice smokescreen to hide what he is really doing.

Yes they all want to make money but that is an oversimplification. Most are content with more modest earnings and a much better shot at winning. We are after all looking at our 13th straight losing season.

Its one thing to make money, it another to have earnings so extreme you are basically raping the city. Next year his earnings will border on twice as high as the highest ever since 1990. His stadium and tax deals are based on the assumption he will spend to produce a winner.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Angelos promise to spend what it took to win when he bought the club. I believe he even offered to open his books.

In 2004 Angelos had the highest earnings in all baseball.

I think you've betrayed a lot of your biases when you talk about "raping the city" and "extreme earnings."

Those "highest earnings in baseball" were, what, a couple million more than the 2nd place team, and that was just an outsiders estimate.

The Orioles should be making a lot of money when they're in a place in the success cycle that drives them to lower payroll and build with low-priced players. 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.

If the city of Baltimore wanted all kinds of strings attached to the cash they gave the Orioles, they shouldn't have given a professional sports franchise hundreds of millions of dollars. Because in sports there are no guarantees, and the taxpayers never had the faintest chance of controlling what type of team or owner they were paying for. The only expectation the city should have had was that their money was buying a stadium for a team, and they got that stadium.

[Lucky Jim]

Not when he's got the third highest income in baseball over the period.

What kind of income? Gross? Net? Operating? And source?

[Wind Rider]

Not to mention that the 10th place in 2007 actually represented a 94 million payroll.

Either way, two can play this game ...

94 - 9

95 - 4

96 - 2

97 - 2

98 - 1

99 - 8

00 - 3

Back when the Orioles weren't in a rebuilding phase, Angelos had no problem ponying up money. And I have no doubt that when we get to a situation where it makes sense to AM to go out and spend the big bucks on a bat, Angelos will allow him to do so.

salary rank orioles

2009 23

2008 22

2007 10

2006 15

2005 14

2004 20

2003 13

2002 16

This really gets to the whole point of the argument, the dramatic difference in spending between the two decades. Its a direct cause for 12 straight losing seasons and if not corrected will lead to many more.

[DrungoHazewood]

He spent in his early years, certainly since 2002 he hasn't where he has baseball's third highest income. Or have we been rebuilding with young players from 2002 to 2008.

You keep repeating this "highest income" stuff, but it's irrelevant, and may not even be accurate since it's just a Forbes estimate. Teams don't spend based on income, teams spend based on how likely it is they will recoup their investment. It's silly to ask the Orioles to blow a $20M profit on wins 73, 74, 75, and 76. That's flushing money down the toilet.

[Wind Rider]

What kind of income? Gross? Net? Operating? And source?

Source is Forbes. It's revenues-costs. It's defined as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization.

[DrungoHazewood]

salary rank orioles

2009 23

2008 22

2007 10

2006 15

2005 14

2004 20

2003 13

2002 16

This really gets to the whole point of the argument, the dramatic difference in spending between the two decades. Its a direct cause for 12 straight losing seasons and if not corrected will lead to many more.

Here's where you're monumentally wrong. The lack of spending didn't lead to the losing - the losing led to the decline in spending. Angleos spent plenty in the 1995-2001 period, and the team lost plenty. That led directly to the team not being able to spend more and more every year. Rebuilding meant that it didn't make sense to keep up high payrolls on declining veterans that were more valuable to other teams.

The Orioles small payroll is directly a result of having a bad team and the efforts to turn that team around in a way that will allow them to compete with much richer teams.

[Wind Rider]

I think you've betrayed a lot of your biases when you talk about "raping the city" and "extreme earnings."

Those "highest earnings in baseball" were, what, a couple million more than the 2nd place team, and that was just an outsiders estimate.

The Orioles should be making a lot of money when they're in a place in the success cycle that drives them to lower payroll and build with low-priced players. 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.

If the city of Baltimore wanted all kinds of strings attached to the cash they gave the Orioles, they shouldn't have given a professional sports franchise hundreds of millions of dollars. Because in sports there are no guarantees, and the taxpayers never had the faintest chance of controlling what type of team or owner they were paying for. The only expectation the city should have had was that their money was buying a stadium for a team, and they got that stadium.

In 2004 the Orioles income was 7 million higher than the next team. In 2010 it looks like it will be about 30 million higher for a total of 70 million in earnings. And you don't think thats extreme , it will set an all time record. I think a 75% tax on earnings over 20 million would do just fine here. Many taxes have been instituted to modify bad behavior.

So basically you're happy with the 12 straight losiing seasons. You don't think the Orioles should be run like a team trying to win. You think the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels , Dodgers, and Tigers, all teams trying to win and spending like it, are being incorrectly run.

[Wind Rider]

Here's where you're monumentally wrong. The lack of spending didn't lead to the losing - the losing led to the decline in spending. Angleos spent plenty in the 1995-2001 period, and the team lost plenty. That led directly to the team not being able to spend more and more every year. Rebuilding meant that it didn't make sense to keep up high payrolls on declining veterans that were more valuable to other teams.

The Orioles small payroll is directly a result of having a bad team and the efforts to turn that team around in a way that will allow them to compete with much richer teams.

Then how do you explain not spending a little more to get Vladimir G. We low balled him when more would have gotten the deal done. We all know what TEX said after he'd signed, but if we'd offered 185m what would he have said. You're ignoring a ton of situations where we took the cheap route and ended up being losers.

[LookinUp]

I thought we offered more for Vlad than the Angels?

[Edit...it doesn't matter. I will say this, while I understand that rebuilding teams often have lower payrolls, I'd be less concerned about the numbers being bandied about if the O's were putting their money - in significant amounts - to other places like the Dominican Republic or the draft. I know that we're close to the top in $ spent in the draft, but there are always more over-slotters to take, or sign. Ditto ponying up an extra $1 million for a guy like Sano. The Angelos malcontents would not have the argument they have if they were focusing on the rebuilding major league team alone, IMO.]

[Wind Rider]

You keep repeating this "highest income" stuff, but it's irrelevant, and may not even be accurate since it's just a Forbes estimate. Teams don't spend based on income, teams spend based on how likely it is they will recoup their investment. It's silly to ask the Orioles to blow a $20M profit on wins 73, 74, 75, and 76. That's flushing money down the toilet.

and 77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94....

[Wind Rider]

I thought we offered more for Vlad than the Angels?

Yes but we had a low ball offer on the table for a long time. If we had acted more decisively with a decent offer, it would have never gotten to the point where the Angels got in the game.

[DrungoHazewood]

In 2004 the Orioles income was 7 million higher than the next team. In 2010 it looks like it will be about 30 million higher for a total of 70 million in earnings. And you don't think thats extreme , it will set an all time record. I think a 75% tax on earnings over 20 million would do just fine here. Many taxes have been instituted to modify bad behavior.

So basically you're happy with the 12 straight losiing seasons. You don't think the Orioles should be run like a team trying to win. You think the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels , Dodgers, and Tigers, all teams trying to win and spending like it, are being incorrectly run.

You have no idea what the O's profitability in 2010 will be. None. You're guessing based on one outsider's estimate and your own ideas of how the future will play out.