This team being out of money would explain this offseason. It would explain why DD is going after low-risk, high-reward guys. But you'd like to think Angelos has enough money to make the big splash to help a team that made the playoffs the year before.
It's true that this team has shown it can win with a hole at second base. It doesn't mean that this team can't win 95 games. Just would make it easier to do so if we had a better player at second or dh or a fifth starter.
2. Spending a little $ and getting a #1 or #2 starter to strengthen the entire rotation from top to bottom. At least 1 guy, prefer 2.
3. A second miracle by way of every young player making huge strides - Machado becoming borderline all star, Bundy starting and hanging in, Arrieta, Britton and Matusz finally getting it, Tillman developing into a top half of the rotation guy, plus continued progress by Jones, Wieters, and Davis...plus NO INJURIES.This is not obvious. What is obvious is that the O's tried to get some FA's, but because they did not have a protected pick for the first time in a hundred years, they did not want to give up their draft pick, or most importantly, the draft slot money they would forfeit. The rules have changed and the O's, like most other teams, are playing it differently then before. I would have no problem sayjing that before the rule changes in the draft, the O's probably would have made a run at Bourn or Lohse, or a few other FA's. Do you see any other teams running after Bourn or Lohse? The only one I see is the Mets and they are trying to change the rules just to suit them. So unless you are the crowd who believe that Kelly Johnson or Edwin Jackson or Yunel Escobar would have made a HUGE difference then what the O's did this offseason wasn't that much different from what others did, including the Yankees.
Its obvious the O's brass thinks #3's gonna happen.
"First of all, this would be more than just "a little" money. did you happen to see what Greinke and Sanchez signed for? How about the deal that Felix Hernandez just got? You talk as if both money and #1 starters grow on trees. Now, if the stars do allign correctly, there is the possibility that the O's have their #1 & #2 starter already. They are Dylan Bundy and either Chris Tillman or Kevin Gausman. It just won't be this year."
F--- you CBS and your formatting errors!
Kinda my point, it never is this year. The last time the O's had their home grown prospect take over a #1 role and be a #1 pitcher was Mike Mussina in 1993 The names change each year. Last couple of years, insert Arrieta, insert Matusz, insert Britton, insert Cabrera, etc. Next year it will be Bundy and someone else, in 2015 two different names. Results will be the same.
I was being sarcastic with "a little money". I am well aware of what Felix Hernandez signed for.
"The rules have changed and the O's, like most other teams, are playing it differently then before. I would have no problem sayjing that before the rule changes in the draft, the O's probably would have made a run at Bourn or Lohse, or a few other FA's. Do you see any other teams running after Bourn or Lohse?"
I'm in the camp of giving up the pick. I don't understand this hesitancy. If they are waiting for the price to come down, fine, but pitchers and catchers report next week.
"Even though the the MASN deal was sweet it was still nowhere near the deal/money the Dodgers just got, or the Yankees, Red Sox, or Angels get every year. Even with all that extra money coming in, it is still not very prudent to have 1/4 - 1/3, or more, of your salary tied up in one player. Like all businesses the O's are run on a budget. There budget went up this year due to the influx of money from the MASN deal as well as the money that came in last year because the O's made the playoffs and the Yards were rocking again."
The O's don't compare to the Dodgers or Yanks, yes, but does that wipe them completely off the map for ANYONE of consequence? I do see after going all the way to arbitration they came midpoint on Hammel and Johnson...and enjoy them this year because if they are too good they become "too expensive" and gone either at the deadline if they are struggling or next winter.
Trust me I have a finance background, the actual situation of what the Orioles show on the books and how they actually are - two different things. They have a publicly funded stadium in a crumbling city, they have a very nice TV deal, and Angelos' other funds don't show up here. Licensing fees. Mega bucks for souvenirs, concessions, tickets. They are hoarding cash. Kinda like your university which cries poverty, jacks up your tuition, yet continues to bank more millions in endowments behind your back.
With the deals for Adam Jones (deserved), Markakis (not living up to it), Roberts (robbing the team blind), none of the available guys would be 1/4 to 1/3 of the payroll.
I agree in the larger argument. The economics of baseball continue to get skewed. ITS TIME FOR A FREAKING SALARY CAP! Remember the housing bubble? This is the sports bubble. We are reaching a saturation point where people are going to stop spending $ on sports. NFL, listen up! This applies to you too!
"So unless you are the crowd who believe that Kelly Johnson or Edwin Jackson or Yunel Escobar would have made a HUGE difference then what the O's did this offseason wasn't that much different from what others did, including the Yankees."
A huge difference, no. But improvements of a few wins apiece, yes. Add 2-3 wins apiece for each and you go from my 78 wins to 84-87. That puts you in the hunt. Bourn and Lohse are game changers though....Bourn fixes more than one spot (solidifies LF, puts Nick at #2 where he should be, adds team speed). Lohse would improve the ENTIRE rotation from top to bottom. I would add 5-6 wins for each of them. Prince Fielder would've fixed several problems and anchored the lineup for 4-5 years to come. I would have added 8-10 wins for him per year.
We can't continue to pretend we can pick cast offs, AAAA journeymen, ever promising prospects, guys coming off big injuries, and overlooked diamonds in the rough, cobble them together, and compete consistently.
I'm not saying do what the team did in 1995-96 (when it far outspent the Yankees, BTW, and didn't go bankrupt) when they got every available free agent. But add a couple legitimate outsiders who can contribute to a core of good players like they did from 1992-93, or that they did in the 70s and 80s when they had a great and wonderful pipeline. I loved that, but its irrelevant in 2013....its time the O's moved on from that too.
"Last year was great. I do not have any notions that this year is going to be the same. I would love to see the O's finish around .500, preferably over, and not finish in last place. There is also the possibility that the O's finsh around .500, or even above it, and still come in last place as the divsion absolutely got a lot tougher this year."
Agreed. 78 wins could very well be last place. It will be interesting to see if the Rays can stay healthy and continue to compete on their model (I don't see 90 wins, but they are >.500), Boston turns it around (they will be at least .500), the Yankees can hang in there (IMO too old, they drop off this year), and Toronto gets team chemistry (they'll be good to very good)....and if the O's can duct tape another playoff run.
Let's revisit these posts in 8 months. If the O's are up there around 90 wins again, I'll eat crow. I fully expect - 99%+ chance - that I do not.
The team HAS money. They are practically swimming in it from the MASN deal. They are being CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP!How much does MASN bring in to the team each year? Curious to know how you know this?
Ok First of all the team is not swimming in money. in fact they are on the MLB watch list as their 10 year revenue does not cover their over all debt.I'm glad somebody brought this up.
I'm in the camp of giving up the pick. I don't understand this hesitancy.
Let's say the O's come up to the deadline a few games below .500, a perfectly reasonable scenario. Is there a fire sale? IMO yes, bye bye Hammel, JJ on the mound, JJ on the field.
This too: if Wieters continues to show progress do they then cheap out and not sign him long term too?Cheapness has nothing to do with it. Remember who his agent is. Scott Bor-a$$. The O's could throw as much money and length of contract at Wieters as the Twins did for Mauer but if Bor-a$$ "suggests" Wieters to hold out, and Wieters decides to do so, then it will probably be bye-bye Wieters. It's still a two-way street.
I honestly do not believe that losing a 1st round pick is enough to keep the Orioles from pulling the string on a guy that is a sure thing.
None of the 2b on the market would have cost the Orioles their 1st round pick.There's probably a good reason for that.
kpk, I found an analysis that's about as close as I can find to answering your question. I would think the chances of signing a player who doesn't live up to expectations or gets injured is the same percentage or higher as finding a successful player in the draft.