59 replies to this topic

[BSLChrisStoner]

What signs are you looking for that shows they are ready to compete? Is it just, when they tell us they are? When specific prospects climb to the major league club? Having a certain number of wins on a certain day of the season?

Plus, when that time comes and they go to augment, are they going to do that in one off-season? Take payroll from $25M to $150M all of a sudden with the intent of making their push? What if the FA market is very weak then?

I guess partly my own expected time frame. 

The other part is you've gone through several periods already. 

 

- Removing what existed, pairing down down payroll and future obligations. 

- Evaluating what remains

- Adding talent, depth, control

 

- Now entering evaluating the ascending prospects
 

Which will lead to, building around some of them, trading / moving others (where you have depth) for where you are limited elsewhere, and adding external options via FA to push you over the proverbial hump.

 

 

I feel the O's have been straightforward with their plan.  

 

Right now, it feels like what I labeled as my 5th takeaway with Astroball. 

 

https://baltimorespo...eaways-orioles/

 

 

 

And no, I wouldn't expect them to go all in on one class.  And I've also argued (articles, posts, pods) that I'd like to see them begin augmenting for '22, even if they aren't really ready to win until '23.  If you add a long-term piece, you don't have to wait until you are completely ready.

[weird-O]

He's also doing a lot of foundational things his predecessors didn't do, or weren't allowed to do by ownership. Not saying that means he'll deliver on the ML spending promise when the time comes, but I don't necessarily think the past is a dead-on accurate predictor either.

Fair points, and I agree. But all teams do that stuff. This strange reduction of all expenditures is not a confidence builder. It's not that I expected to see the team competing by this summer. Like I said earlier, I think covid will prolong the process. I consider this upcoming season to be only year 2 of the rebuild. I assume Elias is working within the usual parameters of a 5 year rebuild (because he hasn't stamped a formal "compete by" date on the team). So I think it's more than fair to expect to see some noteworthy additions in the winter of '21. Unless, as a few folks have mentioned, they plan to go on one big shopping spree in the winter prior to year 5.     

[dude]

"When we need to invest much more than we’re doing right now in major league salary, and were to push our chances of making the playoffs, we’re going to be equipped to do that.”

 

Exactly what I've said.

 

There's no causality between what they spend now and what they spend later.  They want to pretend there is, but there's not.

 

You continue to buy that line, as if it's meaningful.  It's not.

 

That's not just wrt the Orioles, that's every team.  The Pirates aren't spending more later because they are spending less now.  

[BSLChrisStoner]

There's no causality between what they spend now and what they spend later. They want to pretend there is, but there's not.

You continue to buy that line, as if it's meaningful. It's not.

That's not just wrt the Orioles, that's every team. The Pirates aren't spending more later because they are spending less now.

There isn't causality from what they spend now and what they spend later...

But without existing payroll obligations they will be in position to add when they need to.

Which is all I care about and what they've said repeatedly they will do.

[Mackus]

They'd still be in position to add when they need to of the payroll was ~$80M with nothing committed beyond next year or two. But the team wouldn't be as soul crushing to watch ever day.

If the young guys play well enough to cover for the holes filled by guys who don't belong, then that may not be the fate for this season. I'm skeptical. But the last two years have been brutal. Last year was an illusion because they managed to hold afloat for 30 games like they always do, that just happened to be half the season so it felt less demoralizing overall.

[Ravens2006]

There isn't causality from what they spend now and what they spend later...

But without existing payroll obligations they will be in position to add when they need to.

Which is all I care about and what they've said repeatedly they will do.

I agree that's what they say they're going to do. How much I believe it, well, I'm not overly optimistic there. I guess my concern is this... If they're already saying that market size and attendance is a factor in not spending more now (I don't see any way to interpret Elias's remarks to NOT infer that)... what's going to change in a few years financially to allow it? If, in fact, market size and attendance are actually a factor.

If I want to buy something I can comfortably afford to pay for, I go ahead and do it. If I can't comfortably afford it, either I don't buy it or I budget to save for it. But in the process, I can't afford to take a pay cut and/or have my hours reduced.

Without providing a more appealing major league product, they're going to be really hard pressed to suddenly afford more later. Attendance and TV ratings aren't going UP while they're losing 100 games annually. Or even 90, or 85... Again, if the observations that Elias himself makes about market and attendance TRULY matter that much.

[BSLChrisStoner]

They'd still be in position to add when they need to of the payroll was ~$80M with nothing committed beyond next year or two. But the team wouldn't be as soul crushing to watch ever day.

If the young guys play well enough to cover for the holes filled by guys who don't belong, then that may not be the fate for this season. I'm skeptical. But the last two years have been brutal. Last year was an illusion because they managed to hold afloat for 30 games like they always do, that just happened to be half the season so it felt less demoralizing overall.

They could have added some talent on 1-2 year deals and been 'better' this year.  And as a fan, I would have liked to see it somewhat. 

But it's not particularly important to me.   Not important at all if you were to use this time to look at guys like Baumann / Lowther vs. Cobb (or the equivalent). Now if you keep Baumann / Lowther etc at AAA for way too long, and you let Felix or LeBlanc hang around too long, I have a problem with that. 

I just don't find the process soul crushing at all. 

I can always find things which are interesting for me to watch, and I'm not reaching at all at this point. 

 

The O's will win 65-72 games this year, and there will be a lot of articles everywhere, callers at 105.7, posters here, etc complaining about the process.   And then the O's will turn a real corner in '22 and the bandwagon will get much bigger. 

[BSLChrisStoner]

I agree that's what they say they're going to do. How much I believe it, well, I'm not overly optimistic there. I guess my concern is this... If they're already saying that market size and attendance is a factor in not spending more now (I don't see any way to interpret Elias's remarks to NOT infer that)... what's going to change in a few years financially to allow it? If, in fact, market size and attendance are actually a factor.

If I want to buy something I can comfortably afford to pay for, I go ahead and do it. If I can't comfortably afford it, either I don't buy it or I budget to save for it. But in the process, I can't afford to take a pay cut and/or have my hours reduced.

Without providing a more appealing major league product, they're going to be really hard pressed to suddenly afford more later. Attendance and TV ratings aren't going UP while they're losing 100 games annually. Or even 90, or 85... Again, if the observations that Elias himself makes about market and attendance TRULY matter that much.

 

What he's saying there isn't different what has been said previously. 

The market isn't NY or Boston.  There are going to be some restraints.  At the same point, the market isn't Tampa either. 

When the Orioles went to add to what exists, they will be able to do so.

[weird-O]

What he's saying there isn't different what has been said previously. 

The market isn't NY or Boston.  There are going to be some restraints.  At the same point, the market isn't Tampa either. 

When the Orioles went to add to what exists, they will be able to do so.

This perfectly expresses why I'm so skeptical of their promise to spend, when the time is right. I'm sure it gets mentioned often enough, but MASN was supposed to put the O's in a position to spend. So either MASN is a failed venture, with regard to providing the spending power to rival NY and Bos., or Peter lied to us. In addition to that, we have all those years where MASN was churning out revenue (i.e.- profits), but that money wasn't being invested into the on the field talent. We had that happy little 3-4 year stretch of competitive baseball, which was accomplished with a modest payroll. Otherwise, it's been kick the can while talking about "someday".

 

It's all very suspect    

[Mackus]

When the Orioles went to add to what exists, they will be able to do so.

 

If they can find a player who discovers they have overestimated their market and has to take less than they expected.  The Orioles haven't signed anyone who got what they were expecting to get since Tejada.  Maybe O'Day's resigning.

 

Or assuming that ownership will change it's approach and actually target specific guys aggressively and pay what it takes to get them.  

[NewMarketSean]

They’ve been saying this since 2006. 
 

As long as an Angelos owns the team I’m skeptical this will be done, or done the right way. 
 

We have used the “resources” at our disposal before but usually the wrong way...Davis, Ubaldo, Trumbo, Etc.

[BSLChrisStoner]

They’ve been saying this since 2006. 
 

As long as an Angelos owns the team I’m skeptical this will be done, or done the right way. 
 

We have used the “resources” at our disposal before but usually the wrong way...Davis, Ubaldo, Trumbo, Etc.

I don't think they've been saying this since 2006. 

I do think they previously misallocated the resources they did have, when they were spending plenty.

[BSLChrisStoner]

If they can find a player who discovers they have overestimated their market and has to take less than they expected.  The Orioles haven't signed anyone who got what they were expecting to get since Tejada.  Maybe O'Day's resigning.

 

Or assuming that ownership will change it's approach and actually target specific guys aggressively and pay what it takes to get them.  

 

I think they will specifically target guys where they are limited, and look to augment what exists.  And if they get to a point where they have a core that is on the verge.. but need more... and they fail to obtain, I'll rightfully call out. 

They'll have the resources (both $ and player capital) to obtain.
 

[TwentyThirtyFive]

I don't think they've been saying this since 2006.

I do think they previously misallocated the resources they did have, when they were spending plenty.

They definitely misallocated the resources. I cant say enough, Id love to spend money everywhere but if Im being told its either or Im glad they started investing the money internationally and on player development vs 1 or 2 yr stopgaps that may be marginally better than a AAAA option. Jay Payton and Marty Cordova were running jokes too. So Im not buying that those type moves are going to make people tune in more or go to the yard more.

[dude]

They could have added some talent on 1-2 year deals and been 'better' this year.  And as a fan, I would have liked to see it somewhat. 

But it's not particularly important to me.   Not important at all if you were to use this time to look at guys like Baumann / Lowther vs. Cobb (or the equivalent). Now if you keep Baumann / Lowther etc at AAA for way too long, and you let Felix or LeBlanc hang around too long, I have a problem with that. 

I just don't find the process soul crushing at all. 

I can always find things which are interesting for me to watch, and I'm not reaching at all at this point. 

 

The O's will win 65-72 games this year, and there will be a lot of articles everywhere, callers at 105.7, posters here, etc complaining about the process.   And then the O's will turn a real corner in '22 and the bandwagon will get much bigger. 

 

For someone that routinely pushes back on my thesis statement about rebuilding, you just validated it.

[BSLChrisStoner]

For someone that routinely pushes back on my thesis statement about rebuilding, you just validated it.

 

I push back on your visions, because you: 

 

1) Always envision trades of our young cost controlled players for middling older talent. 

 

2) The trades you suggest are thin, and the targets are generally meh. 


I don't disagree that the O's could have made the 2021 Orioles better with cheap FA additions on 1-2 year deals, which wouldn't have hurt their long-term plans, or really blocked people at this point. 

I think there were opportunities to do just that, and it would have made '21 that much more interesting. 

But I'm also not going to pretend I really care that they didn't. 

I will care if going into '22, they haven't adjusted their approach. 

[dude]

I cant say enough, Id love to spend money everywhere but if Im being told its either or Im glad they started investing the money internationally and on player development vs 1 or 2 yr stopgaps that may be marginally better than a AAAA option. Jay Payton and Marty Cordova were running jokes too. So Im not buying that those type moves are going to make people tune in more or go to the yard more.

 

If you actually think this is an EITHER OR question, I'm not sure what to say.

[Ravens2006]

Help me understand why this perspective is wrong...

 

I'll lead with, no, the market isn't on an even playing field with NY or Los Angeles from a size perspective.  I do push back a bit on Boston, and practically every other megamarket area in the country.  Hear this out...

 

Prior to the transplantation of the Expos to DC, the Orioles home market (as viewed by MLB in basically EVERY reporting from the time) stretched down in to North Carolina.  Now... I was going to go through a conglomeration of "Combined Statistical Area" numbers, but will keep it more straight-forward and just go with populations.  

 

The "NESN Market"... add up MA, RI, ME, VT, NH, and even give it ALL of CT... on 2021 population estimates... that's about 14.8 million people.  From what I can find, it doesn't appear any providers in NY state carry it at all (https://nesn.com/nesn-channel-listings).  So... estimate 14.8 million maximum "in market" viewers.

 

The "MASN Market"... add up MD, VA, DE, and DC... that's about 16.4 million people.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the impression a lot of folks would be surprised at that fact.  There's this perception (I think anyway) that Boston and NE is a megatropolis that dwarfs the Baltimore / DC / NoVA area.  And that's just not true.  That 16.4 million number is also ignoring some coverage up in to south central PA (which covers like another 1.2 million people; a large portion of which are Baltimore/MD ex-pats over the last 20 years), and NC.  Now we're at 17.6 maximum "in market" viewers.  And NC has some coverage too but I won't bother with an official number there.  How well MASN has managed to infuse itself in to more of NC is debatable.  If they could get themselves carriage in at least the research triangle area and more of the northern / coast, you're probably looking at another 2.1 to 2.5 million?  Theoretically they'd be pushing a 20 million persons "market size".  Nevermind getting back in as far south as Charlotte, at which point you're probably adding MANY more millions of eyeballs.  Again, to expand to more advertising revenue on top of subscriber fees (which seem to ultimately doom them in places, especially NC).

 

Both networks have some national satellite carriage as well.

 

As I've belabored before, any time in recent history that you look at the list of counties in the U.S. with the highest median incomes, the VA / MD / DC area has a disproportionate amount of the top 50.  It's also worth noting that the Balt/Wash "CSA" is growing in population, while the next one up the list, Chicago, is losing population.  Or at least was at the last completed official census.  And any drive around the "south of Baltimore in to northern VA" corridor is going to show you some headquarters or major center of business for virtually every big company in the country.  But anyway...

 

So... why am I wrong to think that the idea that NESN is inherently better positioned to be a HUGE difference maker in revenue potential over MASN, is not really true?  Larger "market" population, income levels as high as anywhere, and thousands of (potential) large corporate advertisers / marketing partners.  I get it, there are two MLB teams in the MASN domain, while there is one in the NESN domain.  But they also exist in different leagues and compete ON the field only minimally.  The Orioles might never get back to 3.5 million fans in the stands, but we've seen them do MUCH MUCH better in that category even with the Nationals down the road.  Why, if done right and done well, should we assume MASN doesn't have the potential to generate revenues that would make the Orioles as big market FINANCIALLY as almost any other team in the sport?

[BSLChrisStoner]

I could spend more time researching why... but ultimately in-terms of discussing what is... Boston 2019 revenue per Forbes was $519M, while the Orioles was $256M.  TV revenue per FanGraphs... Boston $104M, Orioles $54M.  Local TV viewership... by 1000s in '19... Boston 133, Baltimore 26.

 

Yes, the Baltimore Metro has high median income.  I've argued this repeatedly with various things I'm involved in. 

But in-terms of the Orioles, the arrival of the Nats took away 1/3 of their season tickets, 1/3 of their walk-up / game day tickets, 1/3 of their skyboxes... so yes, MASN exists to offset that. 

I don't think there is any reason to believe if the Orioles maximized their revenue, and Boston maximized theirs... that Baltimore would be close. 

 

 

There is more than enough revenue however to operate at a level which can allow for building a team, and then sustaining it imo.  They spent over $160M on payroll as recently as 2017.  They will again.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

I wish they'd just implement a salary cap and a salary floor in MLB. Make every team spend 75 or 100 mil min. Whatever an appropriate floor is.