92 replies to this topic

[Mackus]

I guess I am a bit confused. Are the O's not gaining information on those three guys? Now if you want to asset that they would even had the O's went out and bought a bunch of players to be a better on field product then Ok I can see that's a possibility. But that's not what Dude said. He said that what happens/happened in 2019-2021 will have nothing to do with being competitive in 2022 or 2023. I just think that is flat wrong.

I think you're misinterpreting dude's point and that what he's trying to say is that being bad currently will not be the reasons we (hopefully) will be good in the future. The few things that you do benefit from during these types of season, you could also benefit from if the team were better and trying to win. Trying to win doesn't preclude you from acquiring the same knowledge.

I do think that trying to win precludes you from finding completely out of nowhere guys. Like if Hanser Alberto or Rio Ruiz or Mike Wright or Renato Nunez turned into everyday good players on a good team. They don't get the same opportunity if we aren't tanking. But none of those guys have hit, and frankly, the odds of any of them doing so are very close to zero. I've got no issue missing out on that opportunity if the benefit is I get to watch a competitive team rather than the intentionally putrid garbage we've watched here recently (and will again in '21, with a handful of interesting guys mixed in).

[BSLChrisStoner]

This is pre-rebuilding opinion.  The 2019-2021 seasons are over (ok, the 2021 season isn't over yet, but it essentially is).

 

We now know the names of everything they've done.  Short of the early picks, nothing they've done couldn't have been done regardless of win position.  Maybe you don't have all 15 guys (whatever), but you could certainly have most of them.

 

If your team thinks Easton Lucas or Terrin Varva or Issac Mattson is a thing, you can get those players.  'Rebuilding' is not needed to do it. Any. Of. It.  That's just Identification, acquisition and development of Talent (and TBD on all of those guys, we don't know if any of them are even any good, most are down the road)

 

Can't just say short of early picks.
Can't just ignore both increasing depth, and team control (directly usable, and for trades).
Can't just ignore payroll flexibility from reduction of obligations. 

 

Those are all parts of what you are doing in '19-'21.

[Mackus]

Can't just say short of early picks.
Can't just ignore both increasing depth, and team control (directly usable, and for trades).
Can't just ignore payroll flexibility from reduction of obligations. 

 

Those are all parts of what you are doing in '19-'21.

 

Early picks is fair.  I don't think actually drafting earlier is more valuable than having slightly later picks (especially not beyond #1 or #2), but the slot bonus you can play around with helps a bit.  This is a very modest benefit of being this bad.  It is no where near worth the cost of how meaningless and unenjoyable it makes the regular season, IMO, but that's up for everyone to decide for themselves.

 

Why can't they increase depth and team control while not tanking?

 

We absolutely must ignore payroll flexibility.  There is no chance the Angelos family is banking the money they're currently saving to use over-market later on.  No chance.  If you mean that we need to avoid giving out long-term money to mediocre guys in hopes of immediate mediocrity (vice being awful), I agree with that.  I don't think you need to commit long-term money in order to avoid tanking though.  Just sign real major league players to 1-2 year contracts to have a legit player at every position you aren't giving to a promising young guy.  It's not Ryan Mountcastle and Austin Hays I want to replace in the name of baseball integrity.  It's Rio Ruiz and David Hess and guys like them.

[dude]

So you don't think that the team has gotten or will get any useful information on their roster makeup based upon the 2019-2021 seasons?

I guess I am a bit confused. Are the O's not gaining information on those three guys? Now if you want to asset that they would even had the O's went out and bought a bunch of players to be a better on field product then Ok I can see that's a possibility. But that's not what Dude said. He said that what happens/happened in 2019-2021 will have nothing to do with being competitive in 2022 or 2023.  I just think that is flat wrong.

 

What Mackus said (#16 and  #21).  I've talked about this a lot.  I refer to it as "1SP".  There's lots of words on it on this site. You develop short term (Win Now) options to bridge to the players you view as future options (Win Later).

 

You can still find John Means much the same way we found Miguel Gonzalez in 2012.

Mountcastle gets the same opportunity.  Kremer, Akin, same.

If you want to try guys like Armstrong or Lakins (because you think there's something there), you can still do it.

You can still grab a guy like Chris Shaw if you want him.

 

---------

None of this has anything to do with Staffing, Player Development, Analytics, the Draft, IFA acquisition, if we're doing a great job in all of that stuff...all of that is exactly the same short term and long term..

[BSLSteveBirrer]

Ok and I have said this before. I just disagree that if you are trying to build a competitive team now that you still find those hidden guys. You can. Just at a much lower frequency. How much of a look does Stewart get if you are trying to be competitive? I'd guess hardly any and maybe almost zero.

 

Now I use him as an example because I don't think he is part of the future. Learning who isn't a part of the future can be almost as valuable as learning who isn't.

 

Plus I disagree on the value of early picks. I am not talking about the data that shows pick X don't historically amount to pick Y. The point is the team has a much higher chance of drafting who they want as they are available.

[Mackus]

Ok and I have said this before. I just disagree that if you are trying to build a competitive team now that you still find those hidden guys. You can. Just at a much lower frequency. How much of a look does Stewart get if you are trying to be competitive? I'd guess hardly any and maybe almost zero.

 

Now I use him as an example because I don't think he is part of the future. Learning who isn't a part of the future can be almost as valuable as learning who isn't.

 

Stewart likely doesn't get a shot.  I'm fine with that being the cost of getting to watch ~500 teams compared to watching 50-win teams that make me wanna kill everyone in the organization.  I think there is a threshold between being run of the mill bad and being laughably, historically bad.  And none of the benefits anyone could think up of being laughably, historically bad are worth it.

 

Enjoying watching the games is important to me.  When that's taken away because the product is largely unwatchable, I dislike that strongly.  I'd happily sacrifice the super long shot odds of finding some borderline starting caliber player that blossomed while playing for a team that was tanking and wouldn't have otherwise in order to avoid watching a season like 2019.  2020 wasn't quite as bad because it was so much shorter, 100 more games like the end of September would be pretty soul crushing. 

[dude]

Ok and I have said this before. I just disagree that if you are trying to build a competitive team now that you still find those hidden guys. You can. Just at a much lower frequency. How much of a look does Stewart get if you are trying to be competitive? I'd guess hardly any and maybe almost zero.

 

Now I use him as an example because I don't think he is part of the future. Learning who isn't a part of the future can be almost as valuable as learning who isn't.

 

You seem to believe that the key to being successful in the future is to have some random guy that nobody has heard about become a super star.

 

....because if that's not your position, why would we care about what you're looking for.

 

If you're good, you don't need random. 

 

So maybe (<1% chance) you miss out on something amazing.  So what.  If you're competing, why would you care about some random, undefined thing you didn't get?

[mweb08]

Yeah, it stopped at 2011 because their position changed.

I'd be interested in a refresher on the history of this position change.

[BSLChrisStoner]

I'd be interested in a refresher on the history of this position change.

 

'98-'11, no chance of contention. No actual rebuilding for large portions of that run. Many of those years spent with the different respective Baseball Operations leadership telling the fanbase, "We're trying." Bandaids for broken legs.  Goal year after year was trying to reach .500.

In the MacPhail era, some movement towards building an actual core. 
In '12, with MacPhail's departure, Duquette's arrival... and with Buck going into his 2nd full season, the Orioles have a group of players that are ready to take a leap... and at-least try and win.  Helped by a somewhat weakened AL East, and the O's being on the right side of 1 run games (whether you credit that to a high quality 'pen, or luck).  Mindshift change after a strong September '11. 

[mweb08]

'98-'11, no chance of contention. No actual rebuilding for large portions of that run. Many of those years spent with the different respective Baseball Operations leadership telling the fanbase, "We're trying." Bandaids for broken legs.  Goal year after year was trying to reach .500.

In the MacPhail era, some movement towards building an actual core. 
In '12, with MacPhail's departure, Duquette's arrival... and with Buck going into his 2nd full season, the Orioles have a group of players that are ready to take a leap... and at-least try and win.  Helped by a somewhat weakened AL East, and the O's being on the right side of 1 run games (whether you credit that to a high quality 'pen, or luck).  Mindshift change after a strong September '11. 

 

Yeah, I guess I'd need a more specific refresher to be able to pinpoint how the O's actively changed their position starting in '12 rather than they made some small changes and things just worked out better, which led to being in the O's version of contention mode for the next several years.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Early picks is fair.  I don't think actually drafting earlier is more valuable than having slightly later picks (especially not beyond #1 or #2), but the slot bonus you can play around with helps a bit.  This is a very modest benefit of being this bad.  It is no where near worth the cost of how meaningless and unenjoyable it makes the regular season, IMO, but that's up for everyone to decide for themselves.

 

Why can't they increase depth and team control while not tanking?

 

We absolutely must ignore payroll flexibility.  There is no chance the Angelos family is banking the money they're currently saving to use over-market later on.  No chance.  If you mean that we need to avoid giving out long-term money to mediocre guys in hopes of immediate mediocrity (vice being awful), I agree with that.  I don't think you need to commit long-term money in order to avoid tanking though.  Just sign real major league players to 1-2 year contracts to have a legit player at every position you aren't giving to a promising young guy.  It's not Ryan Mountcastle and Austin Hays I want to replace in the name of baseball integrity.  It's Rio Ruiz and David Hess and guys like them.

 

There are many was to build a team. 

I don't believe you have to do what what I consider rebuilding and organization building to build a team. 
I think each team has their own variables. For the Orioles, I do think it's the best path. 

I do think there are advantages of drafting early, beyond the direct return those players eventually provide the ML team. 
(Perceived value. Further perceived depth. Being able to move that depth elsewhere when needed.)

I just can't possibly disagree more with the idea of ignoring payroll flexibility. 
It doesn't matter if the Angelos family is banking money now. Good, more power to them. 
Also fine if they're also reducing obligations to eventually sell.  Fine, also more power to them. 
 

I'd like them to be reinvesting every dollar they save into operations and elsewhere, but whatever. 

All that I care about is that when the team is positioned take the next step, that ownership will step up. 
I want baseball ops to clear the decks now, so that when the developed core can be augmented through trade (expensive contract elsewhere) or Free Agency... that's available to them. 

I used to call the approach stars and scrubs, but that's wrong. 

It's about young team cost controlled talent and stars. 

You have to develop up internally... and then with limited obligations, you have the ability to play at tops of markets you never had previously. 

And when you have players you'd like to have long-term, not being Tampa Bay and investing in those extensions. 

(Or if you want to be like Tampa Bay, operate like that. I'm frankly fine with that too.) 

 

The Orioles having a $50M ish payroll after spending $160M plus in 2016 is a good thing imo. 
They aren't wasting money right now.  And they should have plenty of room to take on contracts when the internally developed group is ready to be added to... and that time is coming quickly. 

If that doesn't happen, I'd be irritated for sure.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Yeah, I guess I'd need a more specific refresher to be able to pinpoint how the O's actively changed their position starting in '12 rather than they made some small changes and things just worked out better, which led to being in the O's version of contention mode for the next several years.

Maybe the better answer is that it's not '98 to '11 vs. '98 to MacPhail's arrival, where the O's did actually start trying to build something.  There were issues with MacPhail, but unlike his predecessors, he did actually have a plan. That plan helped allow for '12.

[Old Man]

'98-'11, no chance of contention. No actual rebuilding for large portions of that run. Many of those years spent with the different respective Baseball Operations leadership telling the fanbase, "We're trying." Bandaids for broken legs.  Goal year after year was trying to reach .500.

In the MacPhail era, some movement towards building an actual core. 
In '12, with MacPhail's departure, Duquette's arrival... and with Buck going into his 2nd full season, the Orioles have a group of players that are ready to take a leap... and at-least try and win.  Helped by a somewhat weakened AL East, and the O's being on the right side of 1 run games (whether you credit that to a high quality 'pen, or luck).  Mindshift change after a strong September '11. 

MacPail changed the climate in the front office before his departure

 

DD was allowed to find scattered pieces and put them on the roster and Buck worked his abilities to get the most out of his guys than some others would and it worked pretty well.  Great defense, great Pen, next man up, tight drama free clubhouse.

 

Until GD Toronto came kicking tires on DD and PAG went back to being Peter.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

Mackus

 

Can't disagree with your perspective. And we have discussed the whole "I'd rather watch an X win team". No sense in rehashing that. We just have different view on that.

[Mackus]

The Orioles having a $50M ish payroll after spending $160M plus in 2016 is a good thing imo. 

They aren't wasting money right now.  And they should have plenty of room to take on contracts when the internally developed group is ready to be added to... and that time is coming quickly. 

If that doesn't happen, I'd be irritated for sure.

 

My point is that whether they spend $50M in 2021 or $150M in 2021, the budget will be the same $160M or whatever for the 2023 season or whatever year good team you are talking about.

 

I don't doubt that the Angelos family will spend big once the team is good.  To their credit, they'll spend as much as budget allows when necessary (some additional conversation to be had about how they allow that money to be spent, but that's a different topic).  Spending nothing now isn't helping them be able to spend in the future.  Future revenues will do that.

 

It would be a legitimate benefit of tanking if ownership banked and saved the profits during lean years and then spent overmarket in good years. So if the O's were accruing $160M in total profit from '19-'21 while payroll was rock bottom, they then could spend $200M in '22-25 rather than the $160M the market supports for a good team (all numbers made up and not meant to be realistic).  That would be a legit reason.  I have zero confidence that the Angelos family will do that.  Assuming they will or counting on them doing that as a perk of tanking is folly, IMO.

 

So spend some current money to try and improve the current product.  I agree to not commit any future money to risky FAs.  

[dude]

It would be a legitimate benefit of tanking if ownership banked and saved the profits during lean years and then spent overmarket in good years.

 

...

 

That would be a legit reason.  I have zero confidence that the Angelos family will do that.  Assuming they will or counting on them doing that as a perk of tanking is folly, IMO.

 

While I agree with everything you've written, this isn't an Angelos thing. It's true for all MLB teams.

 

Also, specifically for the Orioles, I've done the math here before, but if it was true and you used even the most modest of payroll assumptions in the past, the Orioles would have many 100s of millions that we're already waiting to spend....guess what....they aren't going to spend it.  The notion that past years no longer have to be accounted for and future spending only starts today is kind of funny.  Again, just words to create the perception they want you to have.

 

Beyond that, MLB owners don't need to save money in A to spend it in B.  Baseball Ownership is a hobby and they can afford to do whatever they want, whenever they want.  All of the reasons people try to justify MLB spending considerations is fine, but it's just words to create leverage and manage perception.  The top end restraint is just there to frame a market, otherwise we'll have people arguing that 1 WAR = 34M....and that's an absurd perception to allow.

 

There's zero merit in the "pouring money into minors" instead of "investing in the ML product".  It's a straight up line to manage perception. 

[dude]

Maybe the better answer is that it's not '98 to '11 vs. '98 to MacPhail's arrival, where the O's did actually start trying to build something.  There were issues with MacPhail, but unlike his predecessors, he did actually have a plan. That plan helped allow for '12.

 

I would encourage you to go read the words from your own site at that time.  

 

NOBODY thought what you just wrote.  "Rebuilding" was a tool for the Angeloses to reduce the external pressure on them because they were terrible at their job.  It was a mental, emotional and even physical break because they were likely tired of the outrage, failure and 'worst professional sports owners' narrative.

 

They needed a break, rebuilding got it for them.

 

MacPhail was terrible at his job.  Most people thought the Orioles wre going to have to start rebuilding over.  Here, there was a Wins Poll and I think there were a handful (7-8 votes) nad they were all in the 67-73 win range.  The Orioles had a bottom third MiL system after 4+ YERAS of rebuilding.  People wanted to trade Jones and Hardy for prospects.

 

Any narrative that suggests the 2012 season was some culmination of the 2008-2011 seasons is being intentionally misleading.

[Mackus]

While I agree with everything you've written, this isn't an Angelos thing. It's true for all MLB teams.

 

I recall reading about one team that actually did this, where they saved up money from lean years and then overspent their revenues when they were good.  

 

But in general, yes, you're absolutely right.  This particular criticism of the Angelos family also applies to all ownership groups.  That doesn't make it annoy me any less.  I look at sports ownership a little differently than many and think that it should be treated as a civic endowment of which they are the steward far moreso than as a family business of which they are the owner.

[BSLChrisStoner]

I would encourage you to go read the words from your own site at that time.  

 

NOBODY thought what you just wrote.  "Rebuilding" was a tool for the Angeloses to reduce the external pressure on them because they were terrible at their job.  It was a mental, emotional and even physical break because they were likely tired of the outrage, failure and 'worst professional sports owners' narrative.

 

They needed a break, rebuilding got it for them.

 

MacPhail was terrible at his job.  Most people thought the Orioles wre going to have to start rebuilding over.  Here, there was a Wins Poll and I think there were a handful (7-8 votes) nad they were all in the 67-73 win range.  The Orioles had a bottom third MiL system after 4+ YERAS of rebuilding.  People wanted to trade Jones and Hardy for prospects.

 

Any narrative that suggests the 2012 season was some culmination of the 2008-2011 seasons is being intentionally misleading.

 

The first day of the message board was Dec. 13th, 2011.  

 

(The site existed prior to the message board.)   So MacPhail's era was already over when the board began. 

 

I certainly wrote plenty before that about some of things I thought were inadequate about MacPhail's plan... but any narrative that exists that MacPhail didn't have any plan is flat wrong.  Certainly as compared to his predecessors. 

My complaints (among them the lack of anything Internationally) were often really above MacPhail, but there were things within his control I think he failed at. 

That said, 2012 doesn't happen without his actions in the preceding years. Doesn't mean it was the culmination of his plan. Means he had a plan, did accomplish some things.. and a core was developed where contention was made possible.  (Aided by Duquette's moves.) 

 

 

Regarding, "Rebuilding" was a tool for the Angeloses to reduce the external pressure on them because they were terrible at their job.  It was a mental, emotional and even physical break because they were likely tired of the outrage, failure and 'worst professional sports owners' narrative."

 

I had been arguing for actual rebuilding at OH since like 2000. MacPhail was the first to actually move in that direction. Ownership was finally willing to move some in that direction because their bandaid attempts year-after-year had proven to be horrible wastes of time. 

[mweb08]

I recall reading about one team that actually did this, where they saved up money from lean years and then overspent their revenues when they were good.

But in general, yes, you're absolutely right. This particular criticism of the Angelos family also applies to all ownership groups. That doesn't make it annoy me any less. I look at sports ownership a little differently than many and think that it should be treated as a civic endowment of which they are the steward far moreso than as a family business of which they are the owner.

The Blue Jays were doing this type of budgeting (perhaps still are, but haven't kept up on it).