Jump to content



Recent headlines from The Baltimore Sun

Photo
- - - - -

Standing pat


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1 weird-O

weird-O

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,025 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 23 January 2013 - 04:17 PM

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.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

#2 hector

hector

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,100 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 04:43 PM

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.

#3 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58,224 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 04:49 PM

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
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It has a nice sound to it

Suggs has signed. I've never been so happy to be wrong

Don't blame me, I voted Bob Barr:cool:

#4 johnpolitics

johnpolitics

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,422 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 05:01 PM

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.

#5 Jimmy Jazz

Jimmy Jazz

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,477 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:22 PM

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.

#6 weenie

weenie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 935 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:31 PM

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!

Edited by weenie, 24 January 2013 - 08:27 AM.


#7 durango46

durango46

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,955 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:37 PM

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.

#8 douglas tomlinson

douglas tomlinson

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:29 PM

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.

#9 weird-O

weird-O

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,025 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:34 AM

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.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

#10 weird-O

weird-O

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,025 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:43 AM

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.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

#11 weird-O

weird-O

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,025 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:00 AM

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?
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

#12 LarryN

LarryN

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,905 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:13 AM

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".
"She's like the ex-girlfriend they're SO over, never want to see again, have already forgotten about -- really, it's O-ver -- but they just can't stop talking about her." --- Ann Coulter, discussing Sarah Palin

#13 LarryN

LarryN

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,905 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:15 AM

** Betemit 1B/DH 15-25


You're kidding. right?
"She's like the ex-girlfriend they're SO over, never want to see again, have already forgotten about -- really, it's O-ver -- but they just can't stop talking about her." --- Ann Coulter, discussing Sarah Palin

#14 weenie

weenie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 935 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:24 AM

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.

#15 weenie

weenie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 935 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:29 AM

You lost me at "Roberts".


That was easy

#16 Jimmy Jazz

Jimmy Jazz

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,477 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:01 AM

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.

#17 ravenjack

ravenjack

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,430 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:29 AM

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.

#18 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58,224 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:54 AM

You lost me at "Roberts".


He lost me at Reimold. Does dude still own an O's uniform
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It has a nice sound to it

Suggs has signed. I've never been so happy to be wrong

Don't blame me, I voted Bob Barr:cool:

#19 ajc54terp

ajc54terp

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 817 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:15 AM

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.

#20 weird-O

weird-O

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,025 posts
  • LocationI'm here from downtown, I'm here from Mitch and Murray.

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:57 AM

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.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users