45 replies to this topic

[PD24]

Chris' post in Madison's thread about the 2013 O's got me thinking....

Here is Chris' entire post.

----

"It is hard to project out exactly what the O's will (or can do) without knowing exactly where they are willing to take the payroll.

The 2012 salary is $80M. If they were willing to go up to the $105-$110M range (there are 9 teams with a salary over $110M) then you could pursue both Hamilton, and Greinke and address the two major needs of the team.

As that is probably unrealistic, I would expect the O's to have interest in BJ Upton, Swisher, Victorino, Haren (if his option is not picked up), and to pursue trades."

----

A couple things that struck me.

#1 - The vast majority of this board, myself included, likely snickered when Chris threw out the $105-$110M figures. Not because we feel like that type of investment can't be supported, but because we don't anticipate the organization being willing to go that high...not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, so if this isn't true from your respective perspective, please correct me.

#2 - Chris mentioned the top, elite FA's, then right away transitioned with "as that is probably unrealistic" and went right to the second tier free agents...

The way I look at this organization and where the Orioles are right now in their cycle of winning/young players/core/etc, I see absolutely no reason or excuse why the O's should not be competitive with teams like LAA, Chicago, Miami, Texas, or Philadelphia with regards to going after top FA's.

Now, I don't expect the O's to be able to sign Pujols one offseason, Hunter the next, Greinke the next, etc...

But when there are glaring holes on a team that could very, very legitimately turn a 85 win team into a WS contender, I don't see why there should be any restrictions what so ever.

MASN money. Camden Yards. Low payrolls over the past decade. Rabid fan-base. Etc..

My question to you is, is it justifiable from the organization's perspective as to why they are unlikely to make the jump to 100+ million? Are you okay with the operating as though they are a mid-market team in MLB?

Or do the O's have more financial means that they just refuse to invest in the team?

[SportsGuy]

Peter Angelos

[BSLChrisStoner]

Peter Angelos

Yes, Angelos determines the spending and has not shown an inclination to exceed current levels. However, I don't think just saying 'Angelos' addresses the question posed.

Personally I don't care what the payroll is. All that matters is the talent put on the field. I would not care if we spent at Tampa Bay levels, if the organization was built similarly.

Regarding this Winter, I expect the results the rest of 2012 to determine the O's agenda.

[Oriole85]

#2 - Chris mentioned the top, elite FA's, then right away transitioned with "as that is probably unrealistic" and went right to the second tier free agents...

The way I look at this organization and where the Orioles are right now in their cycle of winning/young players/core/etc, I see absolutely no reason or excuse why the O's should not be competitive with teams like LAA, Chicago, Miami, Texas, or Philadelphia with regards to going after top FA's.

I think they still have to outspend the majority of those teams. Not quite sure Miami is on that list, they had one productive offseason and I'm not sure how good it will be in the long-run. But in terms of LAA, Chicago (I assume you are talking about the Cubs), Texas, and Philly, those are all higher revenue teams in bigger markets that have had a better recent history than winning. Anotherwards if the Angels offer X amount to X athlete, the Orioles will have to significantly beat it to get the player. I don't think 2/3 of a season(hopefully I'm saying a year pretty soon) will be able change how elite FAs view us. Also, you have to consider that these FAs know they are coming into the AL East. I'm not trying to make excuses, just stating the realities. I'd like to see the Orioles make competitive offers at these players. But do you really care if they make a "real" offer just for the sake of making one? Does it really matter? What teams are rewarded by their fan base for "effort?"

I think the best approach is still through the farm system and we've done generally speaking a terrible job at that in the last decade plus. Do we have key pieces in place, sure, but I don't think it's enough. And while we have two of the top prospects in the game, the rest of the farm system leaves a lot to be desired.

My question to you is, is it justifiable from the organization's perspective as to why they are unlikely to make the jump to 100+ million? Are you okay with the operating as though they are a mid-market team in MLB?

Or do the O's have more financial means that they just refuse to invest in the team?

Let's see where they in the offseason, remember everyone thought they weren't going to re-sign Jones? Teams tend to spend more $$$ as they get better, it's the chicken&egg thing. I don't care what their payroll is, you can win a low-budget (Tampa/Oakland) and you can lose on a high one (Cubs/Mets). Just spending $$$ isn't necessarily going to solve their problems. The Orioles have overpaid the likes of Danys Baez, Mike Gonzalez, David Segui, and Kevin Gregg over the years, among others. I do think it is better to overspend than underspend in the sense you are "trying." But at the end of the day, it's about wins and losses not dollars and sense with fans.

And just a note on the mid-market label, MLB thinks we are one based on that competitive lottery thing.

[SammyBirdland]

Are O's better off with $ than led on?

I think the answer lays somewhere between "yes" and "duh".

[SportsGuy]

Yes, Angelos determines the spending and has not shown an inclination to exceed current levels. However, I don't think just saying 'Angelos' addresses the question posed.

Personally I don't care what the payroll is. All that matters is the talent put on the field. I would not care if we spent at Tampa Bay levels, if the organization was built similarly.

Regarding this Winter, I expect the results the rest of 2012 to determine the O's agenda.

Yep...so many people get hung up on how much is spent...what they ignore is what are you spending money on.

[Mackus]

I'm nearly certain that the Orioles could ramp up their operating budget into the $95-105M range without having Angelos lose money.

I don't think he will allow that to happen. A steady profit is priority #1 for Angelos, IMO. I don't think he's disinterested in winning, but he wants the team to win as much as possible while still remaining profitable. Rather than a mindset where he wants to make as much profit as possible while still winning.

I remain steadfast in the opinion that the day Angelos no longer owns the team will be the greatest day in recent Orioles history, and be the true signal that the team actually has a chance to develop into a consistent winner, instead of just have the very rare winning season amongst a sea of failure. We may end up with another awful owner, but you can't get any worse, IMO. I'd rather roll the dice with any random owner that MLB approves over Angelos.

[Oriole85]

Peter Angelos

What this $$$ and the Orioles topic always gets back to.

[Adam Wolff]

I know this isn't meant to be a thread just about PA, but does anyone know if his intentions are to leave the team to his son/s (can't remember if there are multiple)? At 83, I'd assume he's got all this in place.

[Oriole85]

I know this isn't meant to be a thread just about PA, but does anyone know if his intentions are to leave the team to his son/s (can't remember if there are multiple)? At 83, I'd assume he's got all this in place.

He has two sons, John and Louis. The latter has been the family representative at all those Legends Series inductions (good bet that was to shield Peter from being booed). His sons have had various roles with the O's, I don't believe John has an official capacity with them right now but at one point was third-in-command -- he was involved with MASN. I don't think anyone outside of his family and attorney's know his "true" intentions. I've heard it being speculated that with estate tax laws, he'll probably have to sell it.

I know in Al Davis case it passed onto his wife with his son running the team. Not sure if that's a possibility in this case to circumvent estate taxes? Anyone know tax estate laws and specifically in Maryland(not sure if there's any difference)?

Ralph Wilson on the otherhand announced once he goes, so does the team -- out of his family.

It's a great question, wish we knew the answer to it. You bet many potential owners are lined up in the event it hits the market. Kind of taboo subject for obvious reasons.

[PD24]

I know this isn't meant to be a thread just about PA, but does anyone know if his intentions are to leave the team to his son/s (can't remember if there are multiple)? At 83, I'd assume he's got all this in place.

As Madison said, I'm not sure if they can afford to keep it in the family with the estate laws...

Also, Lou seems to be more involved than John, who seems to fall out of favor every couple of years.

[JeffLong]

I mean they spent $93,554,808 in 2007...

That equals 103,845,836.88 in today's dollars adjusted for inflation.


So there's that.

[SportsGuy]

I mean they spent $93,554,808 in 2007...

That equals 103,845,836.88 in today's dollars adjusted for inflation.


So there's that.

A lot of dead money for Benson.

But that season has been more the exception thn the rule.

[JeffLong]

My take:

http://warehousewort...on-angelos.html

[BSLChrisStoner]

My take:

http://warehousewort...on-angelos.html

Reasonable stand-alone points made by Jeff there. I've made many of them myself before. Primarily that I don't think the spending (dollar amount) has been the problem, the problem has been the allocation of resources.

While I agree with some of the general points Jeff makes, I'm not sure it really addresses the questions originally posed by Pete.

Pete's questions:

1) Do you think the O's could support a salary of $105-$110M?

1a) If yes, do you think the O's may consider doing so?
1b) If no, why do you feel the O's are not capable of doing so? Do you think those reasons are justified?

2) With how the O's are currently built, Pete believes there is no reason or excuse why the O's should not be competitive with teams like LAA, Chicago, Miami, Texas, or Philadelphia with regards to going after top FA's. That if there are legitimate options to address glaring holes, which could take an 85 win team to a WS contender, there should be no restrictions on spending. Do you agree?

3) Are you okay with the operating as though they are a mid-market team in MLB?

[SportsGuy]

My take:

http://warehousewort...on-angelos.html

So, your "facts" point to 3 years worth of payroll, one of which was 15 years ago? What about the several years where the payroll was basically 70 million?

We know, for a fact, that PA has meddled several times over the years.

He has been the constant.

However, his issues haven't been with money spent persay...its how he spends it and what he seems to value. He doesn't care about Int'l signings...Other than first round picks, for the most part, he doesn't want to go way over slot for top talent that slipped(yes, there have been exceptions, I know). He is loyal to members of the organization that haven't done their jobs.

Just this past offseason, he likely screwed up the LaCava hiring.

He is easily the #1 problem. All by himself, he has driven this organization into the ground.

He is never there, yet he thinks he knows what is best. His sons know nothing about baseball either.

[Oriole85]

My take:

http://warehousewort...on-angelos.html

I agree with Jeff's premise to an extent and I've defended Angelos more than most. I think he gets way too much of the blame. When you go on these message boards and just say, "Peter Angelos" to explain the Orioles problems it's pretty short-sighted.

Of course, he deserves to get his share of the blame because after all the buck stops with him and he's been the common denominator for the last 14 years (along with Richie Bancells, kidding on this one). But by the same token, if they make the playoffs does he than he deserve credit? I mean you can't have it both ways, blame him when things go bad but not give credit when they succeed. Does he deserve credit for the 96/97 teams?

I heard many people say earlier this year, if Angelos really cares then he'll extend Adam Jones. Well he did that. They haven't all worked out for various reasons but it's not. But of course, fans aren't satsified. It's just one move and were already talking about extending Wieters or the lack of quality FA's coming here again. And the truth of the matter is the Orioles have extended just about everyone you've wanted to re-sign of the "homegrown" players - Ripken, Mike Mussina (the first-time around) Chris Hoiles, Brady Anderson, Melvin Mora, Nick Markakis, Brian Roberts, JJ Hardy, etc. I do think that's partially on him, but at the same time how many would get on his case if he overspent on them to come here(which we would have to do).

I've had my issues with him, mainly how he ran out of town, Jon Miller and Davey Johnson. I also think he's kept "his people"(see the Stocksills) in power way too long.

I don't think anyone knows for sure the true involvement of the Angelos family at the present or even in the past. I personally believe he was more involved in the past and his decision in 1996 not to rebuild but the stay the course over baseball "experts" got him thinking he could continue to make sound baseball decisions. I believe he's allowed his GMs starting with MacPhail(yes I realize thats only two) to operate with more power. I don't think McP would've taken the job without this. That's not to say he exercised veto power, but I'm sure many owners at some point have stepped in.

Baseball payrolls as you alluded come with some of the biggest misconceptions. Any cost-controlled player you use no matter how productive they are isn't going to give the appearance that you are playing to win just going off the payroll threshold of "you need to spend to win." Having more money helps but it's no guarantee that you'll be successful and you can look at examples from both ends of the spectrum. I used to be more of the belief, you had spend, spend, spend. But seeing Tampa in the AL East, really changed my mind on this.

I'll bet the same people who are criticizing him for "lack of spending," would turnaround and criticize him if he did that and then increased ticket prices. But if he increased the payroll to $100 million, I take it you all wouldn't mind paying $5-10 more a ticket?

My biggest problem with the Angelos era is the farm system and lack of turning out quality homegrown players. Even this year, while I'm very happy with how Chen/Hammel/even Miguel Gonzalez have performed, we haven't seen it from the cavalry. Look I'm happy with the record, i'll take it anyway we can get it, but it's not a good sign that it came from outsourcing. I like to think the problem is a combo of bad scouting, bad drafting, bad player development, and yes, just some plain bad luck. You keep hearing should've drafted Trout or Lincecum and yes they should've in both cases. But going with the info we had back then, it isn't such a slam dunk as it is now. However, most importantly, if we had drafted them, there's little guarantee that they would've turned into the same players they did with their respective teams in part because of the bad player development.

[Oriole85]

We know, for a fact, that PA has meddled several times over the years.

He is never there, yet he thinks he knows what is best. His sons know nothing about baseball either.

These two lines seem to contradict each other... you are saying he's both a micromanager and an absentee owners. Just seems to me you are criticizing for being over-involved and not being enough involved.

For the record, I've criticized for not being at those Legends Series things. I know he would get booed, but I think at the very least he should be present, even if he doesn't speak.

[SportsGuy]

[quote]

I agree with Jeff's premise to an extent and I've defended Angelos more than most. I think he gets way too much of the blame. When you go on these message boards and just say, "Peter Angelos" to explain the Orioles problems it's pretty short-sighted.[/quote]
Its a shorthand answer...and its the correct one. He has easily been the biggest issue.
[quote]Of course, he deserves to get his share of the blame because after all the buck stops with him and he's been the common denominator for the last 14 years (along with Richie Bancells, kidding on this one). But by the same token, if they make the playoffs does he than he deserve credit? I mean you can't have it both ways, blame him when things go bad but not give credit when they succeed. Does he deserve credit for the 96/97 teams?[/quote]Of course he does. He was willing to spend money on players like Surhoff and Alomar and put a better team on the field.

[quote]I don't think anyone knows for sure the true involvement of the Angelos family at the present or even in the past. I personally believe he was more involved in the past and his decision in 1996 not to rebuild but the stay the course over baseball "experts" got him thinking he could continue to make sound baseball decisions. I believe he's allowed his GMs starting with MacPhail(yes I realize thats only two) to operate with more power. I don't think McP would've taken the job without this. That's not to say he exercised veto power, but I'm sure many owners at some point have stepped in.[/quote]
Tell that to LaCava.
[quote]Baseball payrolls as you alluded come with some of the biggest misconceptions. Any cost-controlled player you use no matter how productive they are isn't going to give the appearance that you are playing to win just going off the payroll threshold of "you need to spend to win." Having more money helps but it's no guarantee that you'll be successful and you can look at examples from both ends of the spectrum. I used to be more of the belief, you had spend, spend, spend. But seeing Tampa in the AL East, really changed my mind on this.[/quote]
But Tampa puts money into areas PA doesn't want to...so, we can never build like them.
[quote]I'll bet the same people who are criticizing him for "lack of spending," would turnaround and criticize him if he did that and then increased ticket prices. But if he increased the payroll to $100 million, I take it you all wouldn't mind paying $5-10 more a ticket?[/quote]
People never care about spending money on tickets for a winner.

[SportsGuy]

These two lines seem to contradict each other... you are saying he's both a micromanager and an absentee owners. Just seems to me you are criticizing for being over-involved and not being enough involved.

For the record, I've criticized for not being at those Legends Series things. I know he would get booed, but I think at the very least he should be present, even if he doesn't speak.

No, I'm criticizing him for not being there because he has absolutely no clue what he is doing and him not being there and being around the everyday stuff, just adds to his ineptitude.

If he doesn't want to be around, fine..no problem with that.

Then hire the best people possible and get the hell out of the way and let them do their jobs..He doesn't do that.

He isn't ever around and he still thinks he knows what's best. He is wrong.

He is a great guy in the community..He has built an outstanding law practice. He isn't stupid by any means.

But he has absolutely no idea how to run a baseball team...and he thinks he does.