Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

weird-O

Standing pat

66 posts in this topic

I was listening to a MLB radio show. The topic was the O's and who they should have brought in. The general opinion of the hosts and callers, was that there wasn't an obvious player to fill an obvious need.

 

A Nats fan called in and compared the two MASN teams. he made a valid point that the O's look at their 2012 success and seem ready to stand pat with their existing roster, because they won 93 games last year. he went on to say, the Nats won 98 games but they made moves to fill holes or to upgrade (Span & Soriano). he sees this as the difference between the 2 ownership groups. one hopes for the best, the other makes moves to be the best.

 

so I looked at the 2 teams' payrolls to see if there might be a reason one team made additions and the other didn't.

 

baseball prospectus has the Nats 2013 salary at $106.6M The O's are at $72M.

 

both teams receive the same revenue from MASN. both teams have similar attendance figures from year to year. is there a variable I'm forgetting that would allow the Nats to carry a significantly higher payroll?

 

keep in mind that I'm looking for something other than "PGA doesn't want to spend" I sort of assume that's true, but I want to make sure I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, because he's really painted himself into a corner here. I don't see any other excuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was listening to a MLB radio show. The topic was the O's and who they should have brought in. The general opinion of the hosts and callers, was that there wasn't an obvious player to fill an obvious need.

 

A Nats fan called in and compared the two MASN teams. he made a valid point that the O's look at their 2012 success and seem ready to stand pat with their existing roster, because they won 93 games last year. he went on to say, the Nats won 98 games but they made moves to fill holes or to upgrade (Span & Soriano). he sees this as the difference between the 2 ownership groups. one hopes for the best, the other makes moves to be the best.

 

so I looked at the 2 teams' payrolls to see if there might be a reason one team made additions and the other didn't.

 

baseball prospectus has the Nats 2013 salary at $106.6M The O's are at $72M.

 

both teams receive the same revenue from MASN. both teams have similar attendance figures from year to year. is there a variable I'm forgetting that would allow the Nats to carry a significantly higher payroll?

 

keep in mind that I'm looking for something other than "PGA doesn't want to spend" I sort of assume that's true, but I want to make sure I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, because he's really painted himself into a corner here. I don't see any other excuses.

 

OK, let's assume there's a $34M difference in payroll. What are the Orioles needs that would justify such an expenditure? I think most most folks on the Board are pleased with the pitching last year and are also content with most of the starting position players. The only glaring need is a strong consistent proven DH that will strike fear in the opposing pitchers and I hear there's one available down in Venezuela who'd sign cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was listening to a MLB radio show. The topic was the O's and who they should have brought in. The general opinion of the hosts and callers, was that there wasn't an obvious player to fill an obvious need.

 

A Nats fan called in and compared the two MASN teams. he made a valid point that the O's look at their 2012 success and seem ready to stand pat with their existing roster, because they won 93 games last year. he went on to say, the Nats won 98 games but they made moves to fill holes or to upgrade (Span & Soriano). he sees this as the difference between the 2 ownership groups. one hopes for the best, the other makes moves to be the best.

 

so I looked at the 2 teams' payrolls to see if there might be a reason one team made additions and the other didn't.

 

baseball prospectus has the Nats 2013 salary at $106.6M The O's are at $72M.

 

both teams receive the same revenue from MASN. both teams have similar attendance figures from year to year. is there a variable I'm forgetting that would allow the Nats to carry a significantly higher payroll?

 

keep in mind that I'm looking for something other than "PGA doesn't want to spend" I sort of assume that's true, but I want to make sure I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, because he's really painted himself into a corner here. I don't see any other excuses.

 

I realize you disagree but Laroche at first and Davis at DH would have made this a better team. The reason there was no increase in payroll is what I said when the season ended. They won 93 with a low payroll, why would they think they needed to spend any more money. Every one of the players on the roster will repeat what they did last year. Players always repeat career years, which quite a few of them had last year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to stand pat when the top free agents do NOT come to Baltimore. Can't sign players who don't want to come here. Making a trade for the sake of making a trade is not smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I realize you disagree but Laroche at first and Davis at DH would have made this a better team. The reason there was no increase in payroll is what I said when the season ended. They won 93 with a low payroll, why would they think they needed to spend any more money. Every one of the players on the roster will repeat what they did last year. Players always repeat career years, which quite a few of them had last year

 

As far as I can tell, that's essentially the plan. Crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roberts, Reimold, Arrieta, Wada, Bundy, Tillman, Gonzalez, Hammel, Britton, Matusz, McLouth, Machado, Ishikawa, Davis, Markakis,.....each guy has lots of upside vs 2012 and given a full healthy season could/should produce more. I too would like to see a few adds but I'm keeping the faith and expecting both Adam and Matt to have monster years. And, I'm way in on Chen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wish I had better news Weird-O but you already posted the answer

 

PA won't spend...one of thee worst owners ever

 

 

I'm happy with the pitching......... both starting and the pen

I'm not happy with Davis playing first.....I like the guy but he will be a defensive liability and that could possibly carry over to his hitting.

 

They really need a right handed power hitting 1st baseman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I don't agree with the ownership's lack of action, we need to remember that (homage to Earl Weaver) pitching, defense, and an occasional three run home run will consistently win more games than bashing the ball over the fence. So, here's the line up with possible HRs per player.

Markakis RF 15-20

Hardy SS 10-15

Jones CF 20-25

Wieters C 20 -25

Davis 1B/DH 25-35

Reimold DH/1B 15-20

Machado 3B 10-20

McLouth LF 10 -15

** Betemit 1B/DH 15-25

 

I think this is about right, maybe lowballing on the power a little, but how consistently will all of these get on base? That has been the biggest issue of late.

 

My two cents, it's cold and snowy here so this warmed me up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I realize you disagree but Laroche at first and Davis at DH would have made this a better team. The reason there was no increase in payroll is what I said when the season ended. They won 93 with a low payroll, why would they think they needed to spend any more money. Every one of the players on the roster will repeat what they did last year. Players always repeat career years, which quite a few of them had last year

 

I agree with you. Laroche would have been a good addition. I just don't think he will match his 2012 production. he certainly is better than Betemit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, let's assume there's a $34M difference in payroll. What are the Orioles needs that would justify such an expenditure? I think most most folks on the Board are pleased with the pitching last year and are also content with most of the starting position players. The only glaring need is a strong consistent proven DH that will strike fear in the opposing pitchers and I hear there's one available down in Venezuela who'd sign cheap.

 

I'm not suggesting that the O's should match the Nats $ for $. and I don't think the team has many needs. but they do have at least 2 needs. 1B/DH and a starting pitcher for the back of the rotation. that type of pitcher will cost you $12M/yr. that's the market rate for a pitcher to fill a 3-5 slot in the rotation. tack on $6M/yr for Reynolds, and your team is set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roberts, Reimold, Arrieta, Wada, Bundy, Tillman, Gonzalez, Hammel, Britton, Matusz, McLouth, Machado, Ishikawa, Davis, Markakis,.....each guy has lots of upside and given a full healthy season could/should produce. I too would like to see a few adds but I'm keeping the faith and expecting both Adam and Matt to have monster years. And, I'm way in on Chen!

 

you think Roberts has upside?

 

he's 35 yrs old, he hasn't played more than 60 games in 4 years, and his last ailment is still nagging him to the point that he isn't willing to say he's 100% ready for spring training.

 

I can't see any upside in him. have I missed something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roberts, Reimold, Arrieta, Wada, Bundy, Tillman, Gonzalez, Hammel, Britton, Matusz, McLouth, Machado, Ishikawa, Davis, Markakis,.....each guy has lots of upside and given a full healthy season could/should produce. I too would like to see a few adds but I'm keeping the faith and expecting both Adam and Matt to have monster years. And, I'm way in on Chen!

 

You lost me at "Roberts".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you think Roberts has upside?

 

he's 35 yrs old, he hasn't played more than 60 games in 4 years, and his last ailment is still nagging him to the point that he isn't willing to say he's 100% ready for spring training.

 

I can't see any upside in him. have I missed something?

 

It all depends on what you use as a comparable. He certainly won't have upside vs 2008 but my point was that each guy I listed has room to improve on his 2012 #s (a yr when the O's made the playoffs of course) and make a larger contribution in '13.

 

In Roberts case, he absolutely can do better than hitting .188 and playing in about a dozen games total. That does not mean I think he's an ideal fit for second base though....and we all would like to see another hitter who can cover first.

 

But, I choose to see the upside during the offseason and consider the potential improvement that could come from a myriad of talented guys who either got hurt or were still learning the ropes last season. In particular, Wada, Britton, Gonzalez and Tillman could present some interesting challenges for Buck.

 

As far as firstbase is concerned, if Davis shows the D he apparently had in AAA for Texas, he'll be the glove but lots of teams will consider adding another rotation guy in the spring by moving one of their corner infielders. For instance, San Diego has a logjam at 3rd with Headley reaching allstar status and a guy at Tuscon (Gyorko) whose D makes him better suited to play 1st. I'd rather see the team add somebody like that instead of making a 3yr commitment to an old erratic guy like LaRoche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's pretty unrealistic to expect that essentially the entire 25 man roster is going to perform better than it did last year. Some guys will, some guys won't. At least we've seen that Duquette is willing to make moves fairly quickly when something isn't working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Orioles always knew that they had no intention of signing Hamilton or anyone in that pay scale. So I don't understand just letting Mark Reynolds walk away.He played gold glove defense and wanted to be here.

I don't want to hear about his strike outs. All hitters with that kind of power strike out a lot.

I worry that his loss will have a negative effect on this line up when pitchers don't have to pitch around him anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You lost me at "Roberts".

 

He lost me at Reimold. Does dude still own an O's uniform

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when do they get even money from MASN? Not to make excuses but PGA does not have Lerner money but he gets more from MASN currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since when do they get even money from MASN? Not to make excuses but PGA does not have Lerner money but he gets more from MASN currently.

 

unless I'm mistaken, the Nats and O's both get $25M/yr from MASN for their broadcast rights.

 

this shouldn't be confused with the money both groups receive as co-owners of the network. that money is not evenly split. it's also not team revenue. it's Angleos/Lerner revenue, which is different.

 

Generally, I don't expect MLB owners to invest their personal money into the team. and by that, I mean money earned by the law offices of PGA or The Lerners' real estate businesses. if the Lerners want to do that, good for Nats fans, that can only help make the team better. if they are spending their money from their other concerns, then that would explain the big difference in team payrolls.

 

I think most/all MASN net profits should be put back into the teams since the whole purpose of the network was to assure the teams' ability to be competitive on the field. so that may be the answer. maybe the Lerners are doing just that, while PGA is putting that money in his private bank acct.

 

if that's the case, then it sucks to be an O's fan, because that's lame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He lost me at Reimold. Does dude still own an O's uniform

 

ADD is treatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I realize you disagree but Laroche at first and Davis at DH would have made this a better team. The reason there was no increase in payroll is what I said when the season ended. They won 93 with a low payroll, why would they think they needed to spend any more money. Every one of the players on the roster will repeat what they did last year. Players always repeat career years, which quite a few of them had last year

 

Really, career years? Who had career years last year? I think the argument can be made that most of the players can do better than they did last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

career years-- Jones, Davis, Jim Johnson, Gonzalez and Tillman...

 

played to their career norms-- betemit, weiters, hammel, hardy

 

markakis' stats extrapolated for a whole season may have edged him towards a career year...

 

here's the problem with standing pat--- the other teams in the division didn't stand pat, especially the blue jays...if you look at the statistics from last year, they defy explanation...teams that win 93 games and only have one starter with more than 10 wins is extremely rare....they had historic performances in one run games and extra inning games...historic doesn't happen every year....coming back to the league norms would mean they are an under .500 team...

 

this team has deficiencies that to date have not been addressed, the biggest holes are at 2b, DH and they need at least one more reliable starter....those are the facts....

 

the offseason has not been any different than the previous 16, angelos doesn't spend because winning doesn't matter to him...he has his MASN money to pad his bank account and any revenue derived from ticket sales is a bonus...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really, career years? Who had career years last year? I think the argument can be made that most of the players can do better than they did last year.

 

Adam Jones-career highs in homers, rbi, avg. 2bs. sb

Chris Davis- career highs in homers,rbi, bb,avg for a full season

Jason Hammel-never with an ERA under 4.33, last season 3.43

 

Do I really need to continue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
career years-- Jones, Davis, Jim Johnson, Gonzalez and Tillman...markakis' stats extrapolated for a whole season may have edged him towards a career year...

 

for Jones and Davis, I think it's important to clarify that while they had their best years, they are both still young. every opinion I've heard shares the belief that Jones will get even better. the opinion on Davis is that he probably won't put up bigger numbers, but it's fair to suggest that 2012 represents who he will be for a few seasons.

 

My opinion of Gonzalez is that he can duplicate his '12 season. Markakis has been a steady guy. he can be that good again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites