Photo

Why Haven't The O's Aggressively Augmented?


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

Poll: Why Haven't The O's Aggressively Augmented? (22 member(s) have cast votes)

Why Haven't The O's Aggressively Augmented?

  1. MASN Dispute (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. Family Dispute (10 votes [45.45%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 45.45%

  3. Want To Pocket $ (8 votes [36.36%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 36.36%

  4. Other (4 votes [18.18%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 18.18%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,184 posts

Posted 04 January 2023 - 06:59 PM


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.


Yeah, someone else said that, but that would still be John deciding not to sign players. Lou cannot stop John from executing the business of the team if he chooses to. If he chooses not to for whatever reason, that's different. John could've signed Correa or anybody and Lou can't prevent it without some sort of injunction that hasn't happened as far as I'm aware and frankly seems unlikely to be granted.
  • makoman likes this

#22 makoman

makoman

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,484 posts

Posted 04 January 2023 - 07:04 PM

Yeah, someone else said that, but that would still be John deciding not to sign players. Lou cannot stop John from executing the business of the team if he chooses to. If he chooses not to for whatever reason, that's different. John could've signed Correa or anybody and Lou can't prevent it without some sort of injunction that hasn't happened as far as I'm aware and frankly seems unlikely to be granted.


Sure that’s fine, I’ve probably missed whatever we’re arguing about at this particular point in time.
  • You Play to Win the Game and Mackus like this

#23 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,871 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 04 January 2023 - 09:13 PM

Other: Control (more than one facet) 



#24 weird-O

weird-O

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,250 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 05 January 2023 - 10:50 AM

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.

I hold the opposite opinion. The MASN situation was going on during that short stretch where they contended for or made the playoffs. The family squabble isn't something that should interfere with spending. Peter laid out the hierarchy, so that's an excuse at best. The constant characteristic of this ownership group has been to avoid spending, if at all possible.  


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#25 weird-O

weird-O

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,250 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 05 January 2023 - 10:58 AM

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.  

Peter is the majority owner. If he passes, Georgia becomes the majority owner. Georgia and John are on the same side, there's no dispute that can interfere with John allocating a larger budget to Elias.


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#26 weird-O

weird-O

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,250 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 05 January 2023 - 11:03 AM

For those who think X,Y or Z are preventing the O's from spending, keep in mind that signing a FA doesn't mean you're stuck with that player. There are only two variables that would keep the O's on the hook for a FA 

 

1) a full no trade clause

2) player X falls off a cliff and his production isn't commensurate to his salary 


Good news! I saw a dog today.


#27 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,184 posts

Posted 05 January 2023 - 11:13 AM

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.  

 

Just to add to the point that John Angelos is in charge of the Orioles as it relates to anything officially dealing with MLB, Manfred said this in December:

 

“It's actually absolutely clear that under baseball's rules, John Angelos is the control person, and he has the vote for the club.”

 

 

I don't think John wants to spend on guys and bring players in, I'm pretty damn certain he doesn't.  But it's not the lawsuit or any other Angelos that is stopping him from doing that from any sort of MLB-perspective.  Its a personal choice, possibly influenced by those outside factors, but he's allowed to do it if he wanted.  The lawsuit very well be about replacing John as the control person, but to actually do that will likely require a resolution or at least some sort of intermediary injunction to the suit and certainly will require a vote by the other MLB owners to approve it (just like John was approved by vote to replace Peter a couple years ago).



#28 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,871 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 05 January 2023 - 12:10 PM

I'll still contend the Lawsuit is staged drama. 

I'd actually like to give them some credit for it, because I think in many ways, it's brilliant. It's accomplished several things. 

The Lawsuit charade will get dropped (and before someone asks, no, that's not one of them)



#29 Ravens2006

Ravens2006

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,054 posts

Posted 05 January 2023 - 12:59 PM

Minimize long term contract obligations (basically equals preexisting debt a prospective new owner had no say in at commitment time) while waiting for mother Nature to run its course and make the sale less taxing. That's what it's all been about for years.
  • Hooded Viper likes this

#30 Mike B

Mike B

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,673 posts
  • LocationTowson Md.

Posted 05 January 2023 - 01:06 PM

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

I think it is all of the above


@mikeghg

#31 Hooded Viper

Hooded Viper

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,689 posts

Posted 05 January 2023 - 01:19 PM

Business 101: maximize assets (farm system) and reduce liability (contracts) to attract highest bidders! I hope the sale happens soon but I also want the front office to remain in tact. I would love to see what Elias could do with a deep pocket owner!

#32 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,871 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 05 January 2023 - 01:40 PM

I'll still contend the Lawsuit is staged drama. 

 

1) If you asked me to prove this statement, all of the "sale" talk is evidence of this position.

 

They do not want to sell.  They want to own the team.  Period. 

 

MLB may have something to say about it, so root for MLB.

 

2) Player contracts have zero consequence to the value of the franchise in sale.  None.  


  • weird-O likes this

#33 Ravens2006

Ravens2006

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,054 posts

Posted 06 January 2023 - 08:37 AM

No a player's contract has virtually no impact on the value of the franchise itself.  But if you don't care about spending beyond bare minimum money with the goal of winning "more" major league games, and you're happy to pocket every penny you possibly can in the near-term, it certainly doesn't hurt to keep the slate as clean as possible for the next ownership group.  It can be more appealing to some to know that they come in with virtually zero long-term salary debt commitment that THEY had no hand in agreeing to.

 

I think they want to sell but don't want to do it while he's still breathing (dear old dad's wishes, tax implications, etc).  



#34 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,871 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 06 January 2023 - 09:41 AM

No a player's contract has virtually no impact on the value of the franchise itself.  But if you don't care about spending beyond bare minimum money with the goal of winning "more" major league games, and you're happy to pocket every penny you possibly can in the near-term, it certainly doesn't hurt to keep the slate as clean as possible for the next ownership group.  It can be more appealing to some to know that they come in with virtually zero long-term salary debt commitment that THEY had no hand in agreeing to.

 

So I think there's some merit in this and we see that manifest in the Nationals right now.  They have a ton of dead money on the books right now.  2023 is year 2 of 7 they are paying Max 15M in deferrals from his 7/210 deal.  Strasburg is the worst contract in MLB.  He signed that massive extension, has pitched 31 innings over 3 years with an ERA over 7 and has 4 more years left with 80M deferrals into the future.  Corbin has 2 years and 57M left and he's been bad the last couple.

 

Those contract don't impact the sale of the franchise, but they are consequences in what the new ownership group will be willing to do near-term.  Each year they burn before sale is a year this load comes out but mostly just in terms of the short-term outlook.  They generate a ton of revenue each year which covers all of that and much, much more.  Lehner's aren't stepping out to invest, they'll "rebuild", lower expectations and sell the same BS many ownership group do and let the contracts wash out while they build some resources on their way out.  They'll still do stuff, because unlike the Orioles, they aren't trying to scuttle their franchise value.  Nationals sort of need someone (like a Mike Elias) to rebuild some of their internal processes because their development system has been trash.  They are on the verge of competing for that #1 MiL system so it'll be a good opportunity for an exec who likes that.  Won't be Dombrowski (he's doing ok in Philly anyways).



#35 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,871 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 06 January 2023 - 09:44 AM

Also the Angels.  They are for sale.  They have a ton of money on the books.  Rendon is another terrible Boras contract and Trout has been hurt but has huge money on his deal.  They can sign Ohtani (up to Ohtani) but none of that has a negative impact on the sale of the franchise.

 

These are peanuts over time and you generate a mega-load of money over that time that covers it.....but franchise is 3-4 billion.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=