58 replies to this topic

[mweb08]

Cal was at the game tonight and got a big cheer and that somehow led me to think more about Brooks and his legacy with the O's and in Baltimore.

Anyway, this got me thinking about something that's been discussed and debated on here, which is the importance of keeping some franchise players around for a long time. Sure, ultimately it's the laundry that we root for, but having a Brooks, a Palmer, and a Ripken is just so incredibly meaningful to a fan base. This is all to say that I hope young O's fans have the opportunity to deeply care about the passing of a Baltimore legend just as many older fans did with Brooks.

Yeah, sorry for ruining the Brooks thread with this sentiment. My bad.

[BSLChrisStoner]

The team could have traded Brooks after 1964, probably for a haul as the MVP, most RBIs in the league, and best fielder in the game. Probably 99.99% of O's fans would have remained O's fans. Maybe '66 and '70 go the same way, let's say they made a good trade so assume they do. So no one would be worse off and everything would be basically the same, to Chris. Maybe it's even better, depending on the trade.

 

I didn't live through that time, but I would be really shocked if anyone who did, who could look back and see both outcomes, would be ok with that. Older relatives spoke reverently of him, yes even casual baseball fans. The outpouring of support I've seen this week is amazing for someone who last played close to 50 years ago. It's just obvious that this man meant a lot to the Baltimore community. If he plays the last 10+ years of his career on the Cardinals you very likely lose all that. 

 

The game has changed, so you basically expect everyone to leave within 6 years. You have to be ok with that, or you can't really be a fan. Just about every team extends some guys, but just by the percentages your favorite player will probably be elsewhere in 5 years. The Adam Jones 10 year guy is the exception. We all hated the Adam Wainwright game, but I bet his career was pretty cool for Cards fans. But anyway, being ok with it is far different than actively rooting for it. To talk about wanting to get rid of Adley, before he's even finished his first full year on the roster, it's just so weird to me. You're saying I don't want what I've just seen with Brooks. No, not everyone is going to be like Brooks or even Adam Jones. It's probably unlikely Adley becomes the new Mr. Oriole. But if you trade everyone after 3-4 years then unlikely becomes impossible. I am loathe to tell anyone how to fan, but I will just say I can't understand it, I can't understand giving that no value.

 

I wish we'd had Frank for 20 years, even though I never saw a game of his. Yes, I wish we still had Manny, a lot of people hated him by the end but I wasn't one. I wish Mussina stayed. Eddie Murray was my favorite player growing up, I wish he wasn't traded. Of course I remained a fan of the team when all those guys left, but I don't see that as some kind of check and mate. Just because it was fine doesn't mean it couldn't have been better. It would have been nice to root for them their whole careers, just like for my parents' generation it was no doubt nicer getting to root for over 20 years of Brooks.

 

If the team has like 80% turnover in the next few years, I'll live with it. I can respect 2035 and Mike saying they'd leave. I imagine I'll still be a fan, I've been a fan for 40 years, what am I going to do watch the Nats? But my experience will, IMO, be richer if a bunch of these guys I followed in the minors who gave me some hope and excitement during the years the team sucked, that were directly part of this turnaround and caused this fun season, continue to be on the team for 10+ years. Ultimately I will root for the laundry, but I don't think that's some gotcha. No player is bigger than the team, teams and fans always move on, but the people matter too, it's an enhancement as people said. Just because it's fine doesn't mean it can't be better. If we somehow just got 26 new free agents and won I'm sure it would still be great, but it would sure feel strange I think. It would have been a better experience, to me, to root for not just the team I liked but also for the players that I've grown to like.

 

The team could have traded Brooks after 1964, probably for a haul as the MVP, most RBIs in the league, and best fielder in the game. Probably 99.99% of O's fans would have remained O's fans. Maybe '66 and '70 go the same way, let's say they made a good trade so assume they do. So no one would be worse off and everything would be basically the same, to Chris. Maybe it's even better, depending on the trade.

 

- Kind of apples and oranges given the differences of 1964 vs. 2023.  

 

 

I didn't live through that time, but I would be really shocked if anyone who did, who could look back and see both outcomes, would be ok with that. Older relatives spoke reverently of him, yes even casual baseball fans. The outpouring of support I've seen this week is amazing for someone who last played close to 50 years ago. It's just obvious that this man meant a lot to the Baltimore community. If he plays the last 10+ years of his career on the Cardinals you very likely lose all that. 

 

- He meant so much to the community because he was part of the franchise for 68 years.  That isn't happening again.  If he was starting his Orioles career today, he's probably not a lifetime Oriole. His accomplishments, his longevity, his talent, and who he was as a person are all remarkable. It's understandable why he was held in such regard.  

 

The game has changed, so you basically expect everyone to leave within 6 years. You have to be ok with that, or you can't really be a fan. Just about every team extends some guys, but just by the percentages your favorite player will probably be elsewhere in 5 years. The Adam Jones 10 year guy is the exception. We all hated the Adam Wainwright game, but I bet his career was pretty cool for Cards fans. But anyway, being ok with it is far different than actively rooting for it. To talk about wanting to get rid of Adley, before he's even finished his first full year on the roster, it's just so weird to me. You're saying I don't want what I've just seen with Brooks. No, not everyone is going to be like Brooks or even Adam Jones. It's probably unlikely Adley becomes the new Mr. Oriole. But if you trade everyone after 3-4 years then unlikely becomes impossible. I am loathe to tell anyone how to fan, but I will just say I can't understand it, I can't understand giving that no value.

 

- I like players as individuals. If I enjoyed watching their talents coming up in the Minors, or with the O's, I often root for them some when they've moved on. Especially if they had some connection to Baltimore, and I liked their personalities.  Adley is probably the best catcher in the game right now.  He's fun to watch, a leader.  A quality young man.  I hope he gets a ring with the O's, and I'll have appreciated his time here.  I'm not interested in extending him.  I am interested in extending Gunnar, who I think is going to be perennially in the MVP discussion.  But if that's not possible, I'll want him moved too.  Similarly, I'm not telling you how to fan. If you feel attachment to these guys, ok.  Or want to feel attachment to these guys, ok.  I don't.  It might change your fan experience. It does not change mine. 

 

 

I wish we'd had Frank for 20 years, even though I never saw a game of his. Yes, I wish we still had Manny, a lot of people hated him by the end but I wasn't one. I wish Mussina stayed. Eddie Murray was my favorite player growing up, I wish he wasn't traded. Of course I remained a fan of the team when all those guys left, but I don't see that as some kind of check and mate. Just because it was fine doesn't mean it couldn't have been better. It would have been nice to root for them their whole careers, just like for my parents' generation it was no doubt nicer getting to root for over 20 years of Brooks.

 

- Murray was also my favorite player as a kid. I remember where I was talking to my Dad when he was traded. Thought I wouldn't get past that, and then they had the '89 season. First example to me that players and come and go and my fan experience wasn't changed. If it was for you and others, I respect that. 

 

 

If the team has like 80% turnover in the next few years, I'll live with it. I can respect 2035 and Mike saying they'd leave. I imagine I'll still be a fan, I've been a fan for 40 years, what am I going to do watch the Nats? But my experience will, IMO, be richer if a bunch of these guys I followed in the minors who gave me some hope and excitement during the years the team sucked, that were directly part of this turnaround and caused this fun season, continue to be on the team for 10+ years. Ultimately I will root for the laundry, but I don't think that's some gotcha. No player is bigger than the team, teams and fans always move on, but the people matter too, it's an enhancement as people said. Just because it's fine doesn't mean it can't be better. If we somehow just got 26 new free agents and won I'm sure it would still be great, but it would sure feel strange I think. It would have been a better experience, to me, to root for not just the team I liked but also for the players that I've grown to like.

 

- It's an enhancement for you and others and again I can understand that.  I was thinking of this season vs. 97.  At some point I think I would have argued similar to you here about enjoying watching a team come up and be home grown and developed vs. a group mercenaries; and maybe I still feel that to a degree. But if there's a difference, it's extremely slight to me.  The great majority of the fanbase are casual bandwagon fans.  I think the great majority of them stay on the bandwagon if the O's continue to win, and jump if they go back to being putrid.  And while I think casual fans and many super fans alike, like having players they connect with, and can identify...  I think when most of the super fans say they wouldn't stop being fans if player x leaves, than that enhancement of connection only means so much.  But that's for every individual to decide. 

 

As I've said before, I suspect the O's will reach an extension with Adley.

[BSLChrisStoner]

That's not what the A's are, but that's what you're proposing by shipping off talent early and choosing not to spend.

 

Well, no.  I'm saying operate in any manner you choose (and if that includes spending less than you can, and with one arm tied; that's fine)... but you'll be judged by your ability to continue to make it work and have a sustained winner.  

It's baseball, you aren't dependent on any individuals. A higher salary helps, but if you draft and develop effectively, you can find ways to continue to contend even if you are doing things in a more difficult manner than necessary. 

[BSLChrisStoner]

Fan sentimentality is real and matters. There's also a reason you should keep as many foundational players around all through their prime as you can....winning. Even low-spending clubs like Cleveland and Tampa have done this to some degree. Flipping every single good player you have as they approach free agency isn't the formula for sustained success (see: A's, Oakland/Las Vegas). While the current organization has done very well at identifying young talent, odds are you will have enough misses that it's just too hard to keep winning at the big league level.

It's certainly harder if you can't retain any of the talent you develop into their FA years. 
Harder still if you don't get back talent and control for them when you could. 

There's no reason the O's can't make offers to the Gunnar's, Grayson's, Kyle's, and Adley's that are difficult to turn down. Especially when you have years of their control left.  I've said before, I think they should be making those offers to Gunnar / Grasyon / Kyle. 
I would have already done so. 

For those that want the O's to reach an extension with Adley...  how do you want the O's to handle that if they can't reach the deal I think they will? 

 

You want to go through his years of control, and see him walk then?
You want to trade him in his walk year, and get less than you would if you traded him earlier?

[BSLMikeLowe]

For those that want the O's to reach an extension with Adley...  how do you want the O's to handle that if they can't reach the deal I think they will? 

 

You want to go through his years of control, and see him walk then?
You want to trade him in his walk year, and get less than you would if you traded him earlier?

 

I'd like to see them be more aggressive earlier when the overall dollar figure might be less, and maybe they were and just couldn't get it done. It takes two to tango. And of course, Angelos is always going to be a major impediment for however long he is in charge, as I'm sure his incessant crying poor of late is his way of telling us not to get attached to any of the current players.

 

Speaking specifically of Adley, if he's getting traded the year before free agency, that means there's only three seasons remaining after this one with him on the team. Time flies.

[Mike in STL]

Well, no.  I'm saying operate in any manner you choose (and if that includes spending less than you can, and with one arm tied; that's fine)... but you'll be judged by your ability to continue to make it work and have a sustained winner.  

It's baseball, you aren't dependent on any individuals. A higher salary helps, but if you draft and develop effectively, you can find ways to continue to contend even if you are doing things in a more difficult manner than necessary. 

It's that easy, huh. Why doesn't everyone just do this all the time, without any down years, poor drafts, injury derailments? 

[Mike in STL]

I'd like to see them be more aggressive earlier when the overall dollar figure might be less, and maybe they were and just couldn't get it done. It takes two to tango. And of course, Angelos is always going to be a major impediment for however long he is in charge, as I'm sure his incessant crying poor of late is his way of telling us not to get attached to any of the current players.

 

Speaking specifically of Adley, if he's getting traded the year before free agency, that means there's only three seasons remaining after this one with him on the team. Time flies.

They 100% have not approached Adley about paying him more now to save money later when they can pay him less now and nothing later when they trade him. No chance.

[BSLChrisStoner]

It's that easy, huh. Why doesn't everyone just do this all the time, without any down years, poor drafts, injury derailments? 

 

Of course it's not easy.  It's possible.  If you have the right people operating the ship. 
It's not as easy as doing those things and spending more money; but if you aren't going to spend that money then.... you better excel at everything else. 

[BSLChrisStoner]

They 100% have not approached Adley about paying him more now to save money later when they can pay him less now and nothing later when they trade him. No chance.

They might have, but they don't get credit for asking, they'd get credit (for those of you who want him extended) by getting a deal done. 

Each day, the O's have less control, and he's closer to FA. 
The time - again if you wanted him extended - to be pushing for a deal was earlier than this. 

[BobPhelan]

They 100% have not approached Adley about paying him more now to save money later when they can pay him less now and nothing later when they trade him. No chance.

I’d argue the opposite. I think there’s no chance they haven’t discussed an extension with his agent. Obviously if there was an offer it was not acceptable but I bet they know right around what it would take to make it happen. I think it’s inevitable but I understand skepticism that they won’t offer enough.

[Mike B]

Cal was at the game tonight and got a big cheer and that somehow led me to think more about Brooks and his legacy with the O's and in Baltimore.

Anyway, this got me thinking about something that's been discussed and debated on here, which is the importance of keeping some franchise players around for a long time. Sure, ultimately it's the laundry that we root for, but having a Brooks, a Palmer, and a Ripken is just so incredibly meaningful to a fan base. This is all to say that I hope young O's fans have the opportunity to deeply care about the passing of a Baltimore legend just as many older fans did with Brooks.

A great post.  As a kid, I was in awe of Brooks and Johnny U.  They and my Dad, who was as passionate about sports as I am hooked me on anything thing you could pitch, hit shoot pas or catch.  My sons, grew up on Cal and then Ed, and Ray and are hooked.  We took my 7 year old grandson last night, and he was living on every pitch.  Hopefully his guys will be Gunnar, Adley and maybe Grayson, Bradish etc.  Locking this group down, will not only make the Orioles a better team, but help build the legend of Oriole Baseball, back to where it was.

[makoman]

I’d argue the opposite. I think there’s no chance they haven’t discussed an extension with his agent. Obviously if there was an offer it was not acceptable but I bet they know right around what it would take to make it happen. I think it’s inevitable but I understand skepticism that they won’t offer enough.

I can definitely believe they've made an offer. They made one to Manny after all, and they could certainly fit one into the budget.

 

I can't share your optimism that it'll get done though. The number isn't going down, every day he gains service time and is closer to arb he has less incentive to make a deal, he is passing the time where he is taking all the risk. Maybe as a catcher and expecting a relatively older FA age for a star he still has some incentive, but I can't see the team saying "Yeah, we missed the mark on your value, here is a much larger offer." Hope I'm wrong. I may just be jaded and cynical about ownership.

[Mike in STL]

I’d argue the opposite. I think there’s no chance they haven’t discussed an extension with his agent. Obviously if there was an offer it was not acceptable but I bet they know right around what it would take to make it happen. I think it’s inevitable but I understand skepticism that they won’t offer enough.

There is zero chance they have discussed an extension. When it was asked of little john he thumbed his nose at the idea and said they would have to drastically raise ticket prices to do that. 

 

They want profits high. Paying someone $20M a season now, when they have to play for you for under $1M because they haven't even gotten to arbitration yet, is not in their best interests. 

[Mike in STL]

They might have, but they don't get credit for asking, they'd get credit (for those of you who want him extended) by getting a deal done. 

Each day, the O's have less control, and he's closer to FA. 
The time - again if you wanted him extended - to be pushing for a deal was earlier than this. 

You get credit for asking if it's fair offer and he says no. If they offer to make him the highest paid catcher, and he says no, I have no problem with that. 

 

Yes, it should have been done already, it should be a priority this offseason. But there are hundreds of millions of reasons it won't even be entertained. 

[makoman]

There is zero chance they have discussed an extension. When it was asked of little john he thumbed his nose at the idea and said they would have to drastically raise ticket prices to do that.

They want profits high. Paying someone $20M a season now, when they have to play for you for under $1M because they haven't even gotten to arbitration yet, is not in their best interests.

I doubt John cares about the details that much. Elias will ask him for a $60M payroll budget or whatever, and if Adley is 1/3 or 1/60 of that it doesn’t make a difference. We’ve talked numbers on here before, and it’s not going to be $20M for the first few years. Franco is making 2M this year and next, Rodriguez 4M this and 10M next. You can fit that in easy if you want. Now the Angeloses always seem to want control and oversight over large deals so maybe he has his own line in the sand, but I don’t see why he wouldn’t have at least talked. They were willing to sign Jones, Markakis, Mora, Roberts, and offer Manny.

I do agree that the “raise tickets” talk was directly because he didn’t want to meet whatever numbers were already discussed.

[BSLMikeLowe]

I’d argue the opposite. I think there’s no chance they haven’t discussed an extension with his agent. Obviously if there was an offer it was not acceptable but I bet they know right around what it would take to make it happen. I think it’s inevitable but I understand skepticism that they won’t offer enough.

 

Count me among the skeptics. If they know what it takes to sign him now, and they don't want to do it, then it's probably not happening because that number is only going to go up with time, not down.

[Mackus]

I’d argue the opposite. I think there’s no chance they haven’t discussed an extension with his agent. Obviously if there was an offer it was not acceptable but I bet they know right around what it would take to make it happen. I think it’s inevitable but I understand skepticism that they won’t offer enough.

 

If it were inevitable it would've already happened by now.  I'll be shocked if they actually extend him.  Even more shocked if they do it with Gunnar.  He's not at the "already would've happened by now" stage based on performance and profile, but his agent is the reason he's so unlikely.  I'd have given Rutschman whatever it took (even a couple steps beyond reason) before even calling him up last year.  I'd probably be in the same position with Gunnar as they are now.  Can't force a guy to sign and selecting Boras tells us a lot about Gunnar's desires and risk tolerance.

 

If Gunnar and Adley are settled cases, I'm more interested to see what they do with Bradish and Rodriguez.  I kind of doubt they go after either of them, too, because they're pitchers and one pitch away from missing 18 months.  In general, I'd be less aggressive towards signing pitchers as well.  And you've got Bradish for 5 more years and Grayson for 6 already.

[Mike in STL]

I doubt John cares about the details that much. Elias will ask him for a $60M payroll budget or whatever, and if Adley is 1/3 or 1/60 of that it doesn’t make a difference. We’ve talked numbers on here before, and it’s not going to be $20M for the first few years. Franco is making 2M this year and next, Rodriguez 4M this and 10M next. You can fit that in easy if you want. Now the Angeloses always seem to want control and oversight over large deals so maybe he has his own line in the sand, but I don’t see why he wouldn’t have at least talked. They were willing to sign Jones, Markakis, Mora, Roberts, and offer Manny.

I do agree that the “raise tickets” talk was directly because he didn’t want to meet whatever numbers were already discussed.

I bet JA cares very much about the details. He seems much more egotistical and strategic than his dad. He is the kind of guy that retracted a press release then reissued it with no changes except his name on top of it. 

 

According to that article posted he last week, according to Forbes, the O's were profiting about $9M when PA was running things with a payroll in the teens to high 20s. Now the Orioles are profiting around $78M a year with payroll slashed. Take those numbers with a grain of salt. If you believe in uber rich people's books being on the up and up and what is made public being the end all be all, then I have a bridge to sell you.  

 

Trust fund baby sees $78M in profits. He doesn't want to start cutting into that by giving players more money, especially players who are team controlled. He probably gets half a hard on when he hears the words "under team control" and wants to keep players that way. 

 

JA had nothing to do with signing AJ, Markakis, Roberts, even Chris Davis. 

 

Somehow the son is worse than the father. 

[makoman]

I bet JA cares very much about the details. He seems much more egotistical and strategic than his dad. He is the kind of guy that retracted a press release then reissued it with no changes except his name on top of it.

According to that article posted he last week, according to Forbes, the O's were profiting about $9M when PA was running things with a payroll in the teens to high 20s. Now the Orioles are profiting around $78M a year with payroll slashed. Take those numbers with a grain of salt. If you believe in uber rich people's books being on the up and up and what is made public being the end all be all, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Trust fund baby sees $78M in profits. He doesn't want to start cutting into that by giving players more money, especially players who are team controlled. He probably gets half a hard on when he hears the words "under team control" and wants to keep players that way.

JA had nothing to do with signing AJ, Markakis, Roberts, even Chris Davis.

Somehow the son is worse than the father.

Fair enough. You could be right. John is less trustworthy than his father, as crappy as that sounds.

I also always got the impression that they need to win the deal, whether we’re talking about John or Peter. Like having a mutually beneficial deal isn’t enough, it has to be good for them. Is that true, I have no idea, but it always felt like the case from following the team. This is kinda what led to all the failed physical deals.