Do you trust AM

[LookinUp]

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.

Or, maybe he just wanted to go to Anaheim.

You lose leverage when you claim that the negotiating tactic, not the $ offered, was what lost us Vlad. I suppose his agent could have wanted to make a point, but I fail to see the motivation.

[DrungoHazewood]

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

Do you really have no concept of the sliding value of a dollar spent based on where you are in the success cycle?

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

Having the highest offer for most of the offseason was lowballing? Vlad signed with his preferred team the minute they topped the O's offer by 50 cents.

You really think that refusing to spend $185M+ on one player is taking the cheap route?

I think we've gotten to the root of your complaint. You think the O's need to be big spenders all the time, no matter what the state of the team or the budget looks like or if there is the slightest likeihood that the O's would have any kind of return on their investment. So you have a problem with reality.

[Wind Rider]

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.

Based on historical behavior its a guess with pretty high probability.

Even if you don't believe Forbes, the dramatic drop in Orioles Payroll combined with a huge influx of MASN numbers gives the Forbes numbers creibility.

[Wind Rider]

Do you really have no concept of the sliding value of a dollar spent based on where you are in the success cycle?

Of course I do but at some point you need to get back to the level you can spend.

How do you explain how our farm clubs have a much worse record over this time than the Yankees and Red Sox even though we had much higher draft picks. Its because we didn't spend on the farm sysstem the way we could have during this rebuilding.

[RShack]

Of course I do but at some point you need to get back to the level you can spend.

How do you explain how our farm clubs have a much worse record over this time than the Yankees and Red Sox even though we had much higher draft picks. Its because we didn't spend on the farm sysstem the way we could have during this rebuilding.

You seem to be way confused about now vs. before....

[Wind Rider]

Having the highest offer for most of the offseason was lowballing? Vlad signed with his preferred team the minute they topped the O's offer by 50 cents.

You really think that refusing to spend $185M+ on one player is taking the cheap route?

I think we've gotten to the root of your complaint. You think the O's need to be big spenders all the time, no matter what the state of the team or the budget looks like or if there is the slightest likeihood that the O's would have any kind of return on their investment. So you have a problem with reality.

I think in most cases we should spend up to the level we can, which we've been well below this whole decade.

How do you explain all the cases over these years we took the cheap way out. There have been many examples on these boards.

There's no excuse for having the third highest earnings from 2002 to 2008 while you're having twelve straight losing seasons.

[RShack]

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

Nobody knows what teams make because the TV money is handled in ways that are complicated and mostly secret.

[Wind Rider]

Nobody knows what teams make because the TV money is handled in ways that are complicated and mostly secret.

My understanding is the rights fees are in there but profits from the Yankees owning 35% of YES and the Orioles owning MASN are not.

[CSB Jack]

How do you explain how our farm clubs have a much worse record over this time than the Yankees and Red Sox even though we had much higher draft picks. Its because we didn't spend on the farm sysstem the way we could have during this rebuilding.

Keep in mind "this rebuilding" has only been going on since mid-2007 when Andy MacPhail was hired. Prior to that nobody in the organization admitted how bad the whole system was and stated that a true rebuild was needed.

Prior to that time there is plenty of evidence to support the argument that whatever amount of money the Orioles spent it was not spent wisely. The important thing going forward is that the ownership needs to be willing to spend appropriately and the front office needs to be able to determine how to spend the money available to be spent.

If you want an example of how spending money on player payroll does not always translate to winning sports teams just take a look at the Redskins under Dan Snyder. And don't say he doesn't try to maximize profits from his team even while trying every foolish thing he can do to buy up "premium players".

What if Peter Angelos told Andy MacPhail that he has a player payroll budget of $100MM for 2010? Would that make you happy? How would you suggest that he go about spending it? Should he single-handedly skew the salary structure for all of MLB by paying a bunch of guys more than the current system suggests they are worth? I just don't see a lot of opportunity to spend payroll this year to improve the team without it being spent foolishly. And once dollars are spent, whether wisely or foolishly, they are gone and cannot be spent again.

[Wind Rider]

Keep in mind "this rebuilding" has only been going on since mid-2007 when Andy MacPhail was hired. Prior to that nobody in the organization admitted how bad the whole system was and stated that a true rebuild was needed.

Prior to that time there is plenty of evidence to support the argument that whatever amount of money the Orioles spent it was not spent wisely. The important thing going forward is that the ownership needs to be willing to spend appropriately and the front office needs to be able to determine how to spend the money available to be spent.

If you want an example of how spending money on player payroll does not always translate to winning sports teams just take a look at the Redskins under Dan Snyder. And don't say he doesn't try to maximize profits from his team even while trying every foolish thing he can do to buy up "premium players".

What if Peter Angelos told Andy MacPhail that he has a player payroll budget of $100MM for 2010? Would that make you happy? How would you suggest that he go about spending it? Should he single-handedly skew the salary structure for all of MLB by paying a bunch of guys more than the current system suggests they are worth? I just don't see a lot of opportunity to spend payroll this year to improve the team without it being spent foolishly. And once dollars are spent, whether wisely or foolishly, they are gone and cannot be spent again.

Personally I'd spend what it took to buy the whole Florida Marlins management and field staff.

Set a 100 even better a 120 million payroll and intelligently implement it as you can. There are things we need to do this year. There are things we should have done last year.

[hoosiers]

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.

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.

I think in most cases we should spend up to the level we can, which we've been well below this whole decade.

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.

[RShack]

Set a 100 even better a 120 million payroll and intelligently implement it as you can. There are things we need to do this year. There are things we should have done last year.

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.

[amateurfan]

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.

I'm not sure the Orioles can operate this way. First, if the Orioles are cash strapped, they won't be able to keep so many arbitration players anyways. If they operate under a tight budget they will always be forced to exploit the market (young players). Such a situation is so quickly approaching, that were this the case, the Orioles only window of opportunity might be 2010 and 2011 before another rebuild. I don't think that's the case.

Second, if the cheap, young players now do not develop as we hope they will, then they won't be keeping them anyways because they won't be winning.

Third, the objective isn't to have so many young players that you keep through arbitration and beyond, but a balance of youth and experience (cheap, moderate and expensive). That's going to require a constant balancing act. I think that if the Orioles can maintain a budget of $100 mil, and have excellent player development (which is an area I think they really need to improve), then that balancing act should start this year with a payroll of around $75 mil.

[mrbig1]

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