34 replies to this topic

[BSLChrisStoner]

Can be more than one reason realistically, but pick what you think is the primary reason.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Elias. I’m not giving him an out. So I’m going with other. I think he thinks this is the best thing to do longterm. While not giving any F’s about the here and now.

[mweb08]

The wanting to pocket money is very likely at least in part related to the family stuff and the MASN dispute.

I also think some of this is Elias being like "I'm good" rather than putting bigger expectations on the team and therefore himself.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Its hard to say. I think its a combination of things.

I do think there will be a sale relatively soon and ownership is not going to have some huge contract on the books. Not 150+ mil. Maybe not even 100 mil. That still doesnt stop a move for a 2nd or 3rd tier FA. Thats more an Elias decision.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

See we all agree Elias could have augmented more this offseason. Isnt that cute. Im also annoyed and I dont fully get it. Im just not apocaylptic about it and trust some other things are in the works.

[SonicAttack]

I think the Angelos family lawsuit is the #1 reason why the FO is keeping a low payroll (at least I hope that is the reason).  I stated elsewhere that until the Angelos lawsuit and ownership questions are settled, the FO isn't going to spend a lot of money - the payroll will be kept low (intentionally).  I hate to believe that Elias, if given the approval to increase the annual payroll to say $200mil, would still be dumpster diving for DFA'd and Rule 5 players.  It stinks, but until the Angelos family issue is settled, the fans are stuck with the low-cost O's.   I'm giving Elias a pass until ownership is settled, which could take a few years  .   I don't agree with most of this off-season's acquisitions, and the in-season managing by Hyde so far has been very questionable (for the most part).   

 

In my O's fantasy, the team is sold to the Ripken's (if Cal is still interested). 

[Mackus]

I'll go with Pocket Money but I think there is a lot of dependence between these options.

 

I have a hard time seeing the lack of middle tier contracts being anything but an Elias decision, though.  Ownership absolutely could be vetoing massive deals like Rodon and up.  But I have a hard time believing that they aren't letting Elias make 3-4 year offers to guys like Bassitt or Abreu. Ultimately I don't much care right now which aspect of management is responsible.  They chose each other, they're in it together.

[BSLMikeLowe]

I think today's news of the Ravens extending their lease, despite the current one not being up for another 5 years, coupled with radio silence out of the Warehouse on that front (with a Feb 1 date to exercise a 5-year option to extend rapidly approaching) is a clear indication that the lawsuit is having a direct impact on the club, despite John Angelos and Mike Elias' protestations to the contrary.

 

I imagine that with control of the franchise being at the heart of the issue, while the matter is before a court there can be no long-term financial commitments made....and that probably goes as much for long term player contracts as it does locking them into a lease agreement.

 

As for the MASN part, I think they've long known they are likely to lose and have prepared accordingly, and are simply dragging out the inevitable.

[BSLSteveBirrer]

As others have already stated these are just pretty interrelated and all a factor in the answer. But I am going with #3 and here's why.

 

There are things that they could have done to improve this team without making hugely long term contracts which items 1 and 2 would seem to be a roadblock. They didn't have to go all in this winter. But they could have afforded the tournament entry fee at least to a satellite tournament. 

 

Instead of playing with the big boys they sat down at the 10cent/25cent cash game table with $25. Big freaking whoop.

[Mackus]

I imagine that with control of the franchise being at the heart of the issue, while the matter is before a court there can be no long-term financial commitments made....and that probably goes as much for long term player contracts as it does locking them into a lease agreement.

 

Pretty sure this is not accurate.  There hasn't been any stay in the court decisions that I've seen restricting actions that John can take as managing partner.  There isn't even any dispute as far as MLB is concerned, John is unequivocally in charge according to MLB, so they certainly can sign players to contracts if they choose.  Maybe the Stadium Authority views identifying the operating partner differently than MLB does, so that could possibly gum up some stuff in that regard.  MASN similarly could have more ambiguity.

[BSLMikeLowe]

Pretty sure this is not accurate.  There hasn't been any stay in the court decisions that I've seen restricting actions that John can take as managing partner.  

 

That doesn't mean that the parties haven't agreed not to make any long-term commitments.

[makoman]

Elias. I’m not giving him an out. So I’m going with other. I think he thinks this is the best thing to do longterm. While not giving any F’s about the here and now.

I can’t imagine John A is like “Mike, please feel free to spend another $70M” and Elias is like nah, I’m good.

[Mackus]

That doesn't mean that the parties haven't agreed not to make any long-term commitments.

 

This would fall under the "if they wanted to" part of my post.  I don't think there is any legal and certainly isn't any MLB reason that John couldn't sign players to contracts.  If he doesn't because he's told Lou he won't until the case is settled, that's him choosing not to rather than him not being allowed to.

[SonicAttack]

Pretty sure this is not accurate.  There hasn't been any stay in the court decisions that I've seen restricting actions that John can take as managing partner.  There isn't even any dispute as far as MLB is concerned, John is unequivocally in charge according to MLB, so they certainly can sign players to contracts if they choose.  Maybe the Stadium Authority views identifying the operating partner differently than MLB does, so that could possibly gum up some stuff in that regard.  MASN similarly could have more ambiguity.

 Being in charge of and owning don't mean the same thing.  I think Peter still owns the team and is incapacitated. 

[BSLMikeLowe]

This would fall under the "if they wanted to" part of my post.  I don't think there is any legal and certainly isn't any MLB reason that John couldn't sign players to contracts.  If he doesn't because he's told Lou he won't until the case is settled, that's him choosing not to rather than him not being allowed to.

 

It would still be a situation that presumably would not exist if the family wasn't suing each other.

[Mackus]

 Being in charge of and owning don't mean the same thing.  I think Peter still owns the team and is incapacitated. 

 

John is the managing partner according to MLB, that's completely settled.  He has full rights to do whatever he wants that pertains to MLB related decisions for the team.  He can sign any player he wants to a contract.  There is probably a mechanism for the rest of the team's ownership to yank that power from him and make someone else the managing partner, but its not a quick and easy thing and needs MLB approval.

[SonicAttack]

John is the managing partner according to MLB, that's completely settled.  He has full rights to do whatever he wants that pertains to MLB related decisions for the team.  He can sign any player he wants to a contract.  There is probably a mechanism for the rest of the team's ownership to yank that power from him and make someone else the managing partner, but its not a quick and easy thing and needs MLB approval.

 

John might be in charge per MLB but that is at the heart of the Angelos family lawsuit - who runs and owns the O's.  

[Mackus]

John might be in charge per MLB but that is at the heart of the Angelos family lawsuit - who runs and owns the O's.

But MLB doesn't care about that. John is fully in charge and not a damn thing Lou can do to stop John from doing things within the confines of MLB.

[makoman]

But MLB doesn't care about that. John is fully in charge and not a damn thing Lou can do to stop John from doing things within the confines of MLB.

But if John and Lou are in litigation they may have agreed to certain parameters while the litigation is ongoing--e.g. no big contracts until everything is resolved. Or even if there's no agreement, maybe John would want to hold off on big contracts while things are up in the air so there can be no potential issues later if it is determined that John shouldn't have really been in charge. Just because MLB thinks John was in charge doesn't mean the courts will say that.

[You Play to Win the Game]

I can’t imagine John A is like “Mike, please feel free to spend another $70M” and Elias is like nah, I’m good.

It probably isn’t that drastic. But Elias has essentially wasted what money he could spend, when having the #1 farm system ready and waiting to do the add to the periphery part.

I’m not comfortable with this thread which seems to me to be designed to shift the narrative of discontent away from Elias.