Orioles Q&A with Rob Neyer
by Stacey on Feb 10, 2011 1:15 PM EST
in Commentary & Analysis
Email
PrintRob Neyer, SB Nation's newest superstar, was kind enough to take a few questions from Camden Chat regarding the Orioles and baseball in general. The questions were created by Andrew_G, zknower, duck, and me, and the answers from Neyer won't exactly warm your O's fan heart.
There is a divide at Camden Chat over the merits of acquiring older players who won't help the team long term at the expense of the development of younger players who may not pan out at all. Arguments for the veterans include finally reaching .500 and building a respectable team that will be more attractive to free agents. What are your thoughts on that?
Free agents are motivated by any number of things, but No. 1 on the list is MONEY. So if the goal is to attract free agents, wouldn't it make sense to save your MONEY until you really need it? As for finally reaching .500, I think that's sort of a personal issue. If it's my team, reaching .500 is a lot less important than assembling the pieces that might eventually lead to 90 wins (rather than 81). But that's me.
It's Andy MacPhail's last year on his contract. Does he deserve an extension from the Orioles?
Before this winter I would have said yes. Now I'm on the fence, and would wait and see how this season goes. But yeah, probably. He hasn't made many terribly glaring mistakes, and stability is generally a good thing.
How much of a difference can Buck Showalter (or any manager, really) actually make on a team?
Well, the easy answer is not much, but I do believe that the right man at the right time actually can make a real difference, and I think Showalter is one of the few "right men" who we can actually identify, considering that he's done it three times now.
Jeremy Guthrie, Brian Matusz, Jake Arrieta, Chris Tillman, Brad Bergesen, Justin Duchscherer, and Zach Britton are the seven pitchers who are mostly likely to make starts for the Orioles this season, with all but Duchscherer likely to pitch beyond 2011 in black and orange. What is the ceiling for a rotation built on these players and how far can it take the team?
Have you ever heard of "Sam's Law"?
Young pitchers will break your heart.
Not always, of course. But maybe there should be a modification: Young *groups* of pitchers will break your heart. The ceiling for the Orioles' young starters, as a group, is obviously very high. But history suggests that if just three of those five young starters become solid major leaguers, the Orioles will have beat the odds. Which is why it's not easy to build a competitive team around young starting pitchers.
It can happen. It's just exceptionally rare.
What is your opinion on Jeremy Guthrie? Since joining the O's rotation he has outpitched his peripherals. Can he continue that trend? Do you think he might be part of the next great Orioles team or should he be looked at as trade fodder?
Trade fodder. Guthrie's a perfectly acceptable middle-of-the-rotation guy for a good team, but by the time the Orioles are good he's probably a little over-priced for them. I think management has to hope he limits the home runs in the first half of the season - which should keep his ERA hovering somewhere near 4 - and they can trade him to a contender for a couple of prospects.
Can Matt Wieters and Adam Jones take the next step forward offensively in 2011? Does the new star-power in the lineup take some pressure off of them and will that help their development?
I'll buy that theory if someone can show me some evidence that adding veterans to a lineup makes even a little bit of difference to young hitters. My guess is that it doesn't. I'm not wild about Wieters or Jones, both of whom actually went backwards last season. I do think that both will enjoy good seasons, at some point. But they're sure not looking like the future superstars we expected not so long ago.
Do you think the severe competitive imbalances in baseball would be lessened by the institution of a salary cap, perhaps combined with a salary floor?
First, I would probably argue with your characterization of the imbalances as "severe." The imbalances are neither desirable nor attractive, but a poor team that's well-managed can compete for a playoff spot, at least for a few years. Would a salary cap/floor situation make a difference? Yeah, maybe some. But there are imbalances in the other big sports, too, and all of them have salary caps. It might be a useful tool, but it's not a panacea.
Newer statistics, particularly Wins Above Replacement, cause a number of disagreements on our site. What are the cracks in the WAR metrics that would allow a team to substantially outperform (in the win column) their total WAR over the course of a season?
Do they? I've actually never seen team WAR compared to team wins. Just off the top of my head, WAR doesn't account for baserunning (except for steals). Nor does it account for luck. And that's the big one. The vast majority of fans simply don't understand the degree to which luck impacts wins and losses, even over the course of 162 games.
385 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It would nice to get some luck.
Just because you know how to read, doesn't mean you'll like the book.
I tried pointing out the huge role luck plays in sports ...
… to the posters at the basketball blog I follow who are always pronoucing that nothing matters except winning a championship and that everything about your team should be evaluated in that light.
It is similar to arguing whether it is the moldy cheese or the dead mouse that is stinking up the room and ignoring the hippo who farts every 20 minutes.
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
Yikes...
I laughed at the analogy, but… your parents weren’t huge on making you clean your room as a child were they?
Just because you know how to read, doesn't mean you'll like the book.
by arlingtonOsFan on Feb 10, 2011 3:36 PM EST up reply actions
Had to clean our room, make our bed and a bunch of other stuff.
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
i heart rob
Thanks Rob!!!! You da bomb!
Needless to say, I agree with his comments.
As for finally reaching .500, I think that’s sort of a personal issue.
Sums it perfectly. That’s what I’ve been meaning to articulate but Rob does it better.
I am observing and judging you.
this site is getting so depressing
The truth hurts.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Feb 10, 2011 1:26 PM EST up reply actions
this site is just the messenger i get it
still depressing
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Feb 10, 2011 1:57 PM EST up reply actions
.500 isn't a personal issue for this team
I understand what he means but to a team that’s been a joke fo so many years to finish .500 this season would remind the league that the Orioles still exist.
"Have a good time...all the time." - Viv Savage
I think management has to hope he limits the home runs in the first half of the season – which should keep his ERA hovering somewhere near 4 – and they can trade him to a contender for a couple of prospects.
Absolutely agree but this will NEVER happen.
I am observing and judging you.
if the Orioles are 10+ games under .500 come July 1
I think it really could be the end of the road for us and Guts
FROG SAYS PROTECT HOME
my heart definitely object
but shit, we’re one big hairy arm and it’ll be time to pull the band aid if it reaches that point.
I am observing and judging you.
two things
i’m not sure if andy has the gut (ha!) to trade Guts and, even if he does, i don’t think andy’s expectations will be in line the market. he’s going to ask for too much particularly if Guts is pitching well.
I am observing and judging you.
And if he gets it, great
And if he doesn’t, Guts can have a few more good years for us. I’m in no hurry to move him for anything short than a great deal.
"I find you to be ... disturbingly great." - Steven Tyler
So if we get a great deal, move him
If not, use those two good years and get the draft pick after we offer arb, yes?
"I find you to be ... disturbingly great." - Steven Tyler
ah, i wasn't counting this season
because we were entertaining a mid season trade.
I am observing and judging you.
I agree.
I don’t think you look at Guthrie in isolation. If you agree with Sam’s Law (and I do), Baltimore could be realistically looking at one good pitcher and one, maybe two average at best pitchers from among its young arms. Guthrie is exactly the kind of player I’d want to keep in order to provide the rotation with some depth.
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
We should keep him unless we get a fantastic deal
Tying into the point Rob made about money, I really don’t think money is an issue for us with MASN and Angelos has spent before. If we can break out this year, Guthrie is exactly the type of player to throw a decent contract at. Only if we’re starting over from scratch is he worth trading for prospects
"No Atlantis is too underwater or fictional!"
by Astronaut Mike Dexter on Feb 10, 2011 3:41 PM EST up reply actions
If they are that ...
… it may be time to find another team to support.
Like how ’ bout them Mariners. Except that Seattle is probably every bit as messed up as the O’s. Maybe more so.
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
...and my dream where Guts becomes a Met becomes reality
though I think the Phils could use more pitching. Maybe they trade for him instead. I’ll have to sleep on it.
"things like locig and prrofreading are actually valued here" - zknower
Guess I won't be reading much of Rob Neyer.
A few thoughts:
- The Orioles could save all the MONEY they spent on their entire payroll last year, add it to the MONEY they’ll spend this year and still come nowhere close to the MONEY the Yankees pay every single year to players with essentially a guarantee of playing for a winning team. So this piggy bank theory is not really doing it for me.
- This brings us to the salary cap answer, which I might not categorize as severely ridiculous, but would certainly categorize as borderline ridiculous. There’s been some fine work done on the subject right here on CC. Baseball is the most severely imbalanced of all the major sports leagues in terms of payroll disparities. To pretend otherwise is to perpetuate the problem.
- After how many days, weeks of arguments around here, none of you guys asked about the future prospects of Messrs. Pie & Reimold? Say huh?
by Jonny Pops on Feb 10, 2011 1:44 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
We asked about the general concept in the first question
And he already wrote about Vlad vs. Reimold/Pie here: http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2011/2/4/1975809/vladimir-guerrero-orioles-sign-contract-neyer
I guess I simply am awash in ignorance of Alfredo Simon. -James F
To pretend otherwise is to perpetuate the problem.
Would a salary cap/floor situation make a difference? Yeah, maybe some.
I am observing and judging you.
re:
But there are imbalances in the other big sports, too, and all of them have salary caps.
Yeah, maybe some.
This isn’t a “Yeah, maybe some.” kind of problem folks. This is an urgent, ridiculous problem that he’s taking pains to minimize and conflate with the unrelated problems of other sports. Now I can agree that a true salary cap will not be a fix-all for everything wrong with baseball. But let’s get real. Seriously.
Minimize?
Why would I purposely minimize MLB’s problems? I’ve been as critical as anyone over the years, and I’ve been a big supporter of revenue-sharing, etc. But we have seen teams with relatively low payrolls in the playoffs in recent years. It can be done. And the salary cap is a complete non-starter with the union. Are we willing to lose a whole season to the issue?
I’m not, anyway.
by robneyer on Feb 10, 2011 2:01 PM EST up reply actions 6 recs
I think Rob would be best served by reading the eleventy million Vladi comments before going much further
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
Hobbit math actually.
You come at the king, you best not miss.
by organizedchaos52 on Feb 10, 2011 4:16 PM EST up reply actions
Or Keanu Reeves math
Let’s see what you wagered: Eleventy billion dollars? That’s not even a real number!
"No Atlantis is too underwater or fictional!"
by Astronaut Mike Dexter on Feb 10, 2011 4:24 PM EST up reply actions
wooooaaah
Just because you know how to read, doesn't mean you'll like the book.
by arlingtonOsFan on Feb 10, 2011 4:42 PM EST up reply actions
HOOOAAAAAAAHHH!
Just enjoy the beats.
-Guts
by j.q. higgins on Feb 10, 2011 4:44 PM EST up reply actions
Which one of those
was positing a strike lasting an entire year? Evidence or logic?
Sorry. That was conjecture.
"Might as well just win this game." - Adam Jones, 4/17/2008
Adam Jones is the tits.
by KenDixonFanClub on Feb 10, 2011 2:42 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
i just meant in general
i’m sure there are particular instances where rob uses has to make an inference based on incomplete or flawed evidence. we all do. as far specific sentences he’s written here like the salary cap/strike, i would advise you ask him about the evidence base he uses to make any particular statement.
I am observing and judging you.
rec'd
I ♥ you, KenDixonFanClub.
And birdman, next time you say others are being “snarky”, remember to look in the mirror.
"I put a pepper rub on the scallops so you have a little contrast. You have sweetness from the coconut oil and little acidity from the splash of lemon." – Luke Scott
implying that those who don't love rob
and/or don’t agree with you don’t use “evidence and logic” is snarky.
"I put a pepper rub on the scallops so you have a little contrast. You have sweetness from the coconut oil and little acidity from the splash of lemon." – Luke Scott
You know, in fact
I’d go so far as to say it is treading dangerously close to the Slippery Slope Logical Fallacy.
"Might as well just win this game." - Adam Jones, 4/17/2008
Adam Jones is the tits.
by KenDixonFanClub on Feb 10, 2011 2:46 PM EST up reply actions
Oh holy shit...
I just spit out diet soda…
And right now I can honestly say y'all are getting a paycheck for nothing. - Josh Howard
by TerroristFistJab on Feb 10, 2011 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
I am.
Some low payroll teams have managed to work their way to the first rounds of the playoffs, where they usually get shellacked. None of them can retain their best players year-in and year-out, so they are destined to go through rebuilding phases after 2-3 years at most. Meanwhile, the top 8 teams or so use the rest of the league as player development and never have to endure rebuilding. Their revenues increase, the imbalance increases, and the disparity widens.
And no other major US sports league has the competitive imbalances akin to what baseball has—particularly not comparable to the AL east.
I would absolutely give up one year of baseball for a salary cap…if it even cam to that. It’s ridiculous to assume a strike is a foregone conclusion since Fehr is gone. The players might like the idea of a salary floor, which could include raising the minimum payroll—in which case the union might wake up to the fact that having most of its players earning more money would be better than a handful of its superstars getting a ridiculous payday. Plus, contraction is likely in the next decade if costs aren’t controlled, and losing 50+ jobs or more at the ML level will hurt the players a lot more than a cap would.
"I put a pepper rub on the scallops so you have a little contrast. You have sweetness from the coconut oil and little acidity from the splash of lemon." – Luke Scott
by zknower on Feb 10, 2011 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Some low payroll teams have managed to work their way to the first rounds of the playoffs, where they usually get shellacked.
The Twins have done poorly, while the Rays, Rockies, and A’s have reached the ALCS and WS. In any case, the playoffs due to the small number of games per series, tend to be volatile affair. It’s hard to identify any significant predictors.
so they are destined to go through rebuilding phases after 2-3 years at most.
Well, Rob did say, “A poor team that’s well-managed can compete for a playoff spot, at least for a few years,” so he agrees with you on that point.
if it even cam to that. It’s ridiculous to assume a strike is a foregone conclusion since Fehr is gone.
Evidence?
I am observing and judging you.
No, the evidence has to come from Rob.
First of all, it’s a hypothetical, so there can’t really be “evidence”, there can only be a best guess (just like many sabr stats!).
Second, with a new union head and with 17 years having been passed since the last work stoppage, It’s not on me to prove a strike wouldn’t happen, it’s on Rob to document how it would. Particularly since the last time the players threatened a major strike (in 2002, over the payroll tax), they caved, in return for a guarantee that there would be no contraction for four years. For this, they accepted not only the payroll tax, but also mandatory steroid testing.
Changes in leadership are significant. Pretending they’re not is making a gross assumption. Fehr repeatedly and vociferously threatened to strike when the owners took postitions he disagreed with…..and he followed through, too. Except when he didn’t. We have no idea if Weiner is as militant as Fehr or not, since he’s never had to handle a negotiation. We have absolutely no idea, if he was approached with a salary cap deal that had other concessions on it, how he would respond.
So it’s irresponsible to lob out,
And the salary cap is a complete non-starter with the union. Are we willing to lose a whole season to the issue? I’m not, anyway.
….as though it’s some kind of fait accompli or foregone conclusion or accepted truth, without backing it up with some kind of evidence (your word) that such a strike would, in fact, happen under new leadership, new circumstances, and a different financial climate than was seen in the past.
"I put a pepper rub on the scallops so you have a little contrast. You have sweetness from the coconut oil and little acidity from the splash of lemon." – Luke Scott
First of all, it’s a hypothetical, so there can’t really be "evidence", there can only be a best guess (just like many sabr stats!).
There are guesses based on evidence and then there are just guesses. I alway prefer the former. As far as changes in leadership go, I don’t know much about the new guy. I’m sure somebody could do some research about his feelings about the cap. Or do research about the people who hired the new guy in order to get a sense of the type of person they are looking to hire.
I am observing and judging you.
you could do all that research,
and you still can’t make an assumption the likes of which was made above.
see the example where the strike didn’t happen. if the owners hadn’t fought for it, there wouldn’t even be revenue tax, and there’d be no steroid testing.
"I put a pepper rub on the scallops so you have a little contrast. You have sweetness from the coconut oil and little acidity from the splash of lemon." – Luke Scott
I wonder why people want to argue this.
Baseball has had it’s haves and havenots almost from day one. In other words, it has been an intregal part of baseball and if it continues to be so in the future, so what?
Besides, with the advent of division play and wild cards, the chances for smaller market or shallow pockets teams to complete for a penant are greater. Then there is the fact that a team’s ability to compete financially is not solely tied to the size of the market it plays in. Portland OR is not a top 10 market, but we do just fine, thanks to being owned by some guy named Paul Allen. And as has been pointed out to me here at CC, it isn’t as if Baltimore doesn’t have money to spend.
There are multiple factors that can come into play in determining a championship. Money is just one of them. Since Division play started, 20 of the 41 AL champs have been smaller market teams (using an arbitrary catigorization that counted Balt & Cleve as smaller and Det, Toronto & Anaheim as larger).
Yes the Yankees have more than any other single team since 1969, but Damn Yankees was on Broadway before I was born. 11 AL titles for NY compared to 5 for the O’s is not that great of a disparity. It’s even less if you count 1996 (i.e. it should be 10 – 6). Throw in the fact Baltimore has sucked for 13 straight seasons primarily due to self-inflicted wounds and making the argument that baseball is wildly out of balance starts to sound like the whiney excuse of some fan of a perennial loser.
In otherwords, I think Neyer has a better case than Jonny.
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
The numbers speak for themself...
…and taking a look at Zach’s post of several weeks back shows convincingly that the small revenue teams that do slip are outliers.
Now realistically is a cap going to happen? Of course not. Not with weak central management of the league as a whole and the players union, both of whom are against it, in the tank. But the press has a responsibility to provide a counterbalance to (deeply) entrenched interests such as these, and you are dropping the ball when given the opportunity.
Why are you minimizing the problem? I have no idea. But using weak sauce language “Yeah, maybe some.” and “I would probably argue with your characterization of the imbalances as ‘severe.’”is not providing the weight this issue deserves.
not to mention
….implying a season-long strike is unavoidable if the issue is raised.
"I put a pepper rub on the scallops so you have a little contrast. You have sweetness from the coconut oil and little acidity from the splash of lemon." – Luke Scott
But we have seen teams with relatively low payrolls in the playoffs in recent years. It can be done. And the salary cap is a complete non-starter with the union. Are we willing to lose a whole season to the issue?
I absolutely HATE the argument that low payroll teams occasionally making the playoffs means a salary cap isn’t necessary. It is a complete joke that certain teams are almost a guarantee to make the playoffs every year, or say 4 out of every 5 years and a low payroll team can occasionally pop up for a season or two out of 10 before their players bolt for the high payroll teams. I, for one, am not interested in seeing the Yankees make the playoffs 9/10 years simply for the reason of having the most money and the Rays, O’s, or Jays getting lucky once in a while and making the playoffs. This is a major reason why the NFL is murdering MLB right now.
As for the second point….I’d gladly lose 2 or 3 seasons of baseball if it meant I’d get to enjoy the rest of my lifetime seeing the Orioles and every other team have an equal shot at competing. That is a no-brainer trade-off to me. If the O’s mismanage and still suck for multiple years, that’s their fault, but at least they have a chance.
by YeahDonnie on Feb 10, 2011 10:58 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
i've been saying the same thing,
but I’m starting to rethink it. Consider that just 4 teams have been to the superbowl in the AFC in the last 10 years. Furthermore, just 3 teams account for 9 of those appearances.
Here are some playoff appearances by teams in the last 10 years:
Colts: 9
Pats: 8
Eagles: 8
Steelers: 7
Packers: 7
So baseball is not alone in creating in a system whereby certain teams can be elite. With baseball it’s money, but in football I think it’s because they’ve tweaked the rules to favor a passing game so much that a team needs an elite quarterback to succeed consistently and there are only so many to go around. Defense and a solid running game hasn’t won a superbowl in 10 years.
It’s also less noticeable in football because more teams make the playoffs.
The Steelers have won 2 Super Bowls recently because of defense and the running game
Ok, Ben made some nice plays at critical moments, but he would never have had the opportunity without his defense and running game. Also, while teams with elite QBs have an advantage, every team has an exactly equal opportunity to acquire an elite QB through the draft or free agency. Not to mention an elite QB can look quite pedestrian with no O Line or WR help, and a mediocre QB can look much better with a good supporting cast.
Pittsburgh can't spend any more money than anyone else
So I’m thinking the NFL is not an argument for saying a salary cap doesn’t solve the problem. In PIT’s case, they win because they’re better, and the reason they’re better has nothing to do with cash. Every other team in the NFL could do what PIT did. In MLB, you can’t say that about the NYY or BOS .
"I find you to be ... disturbingly great." - Steven Tyler
Exactly
If there is an imbalance in the NFL, it’s because of better front offices, or lucky picks in the draft, or a whole host of things that have nothing to do with money. The teams all have the same limit as to what they have to spend, so filling every roster spot takes some actual consideration (instead of just boat loads of money and a list of last years all-stars).
"things like locig and prrofreading are actually valued here" - zknower
Exactly
I agree 100% with both you and duck, and in my fantasy land the O’s would have the same opportunity as every other team to be really good or really bad due solely to the nuances of the sport and the talent level of management.
Those same inbalances exist in baseball.
Seriously, how can any Oriole fan not recognize the importance of better front offices and lucky draft picks (or better informed staff)?
I recall a several year drought for the Yankees. They had boatloads of money and signed big name players and Steinbrenner would go apeshit at the end of the season. I think Brian Cashman has far more to do with the success of the Yankees than all their money.
And lets not start acting as if Baltimore is some down and out poor second cousin, with hardly two dimes to rub together. This team has had the resources to sign big names, to select and sign Scott Boras represented draft picks, to go over slot on signing bonuses. If guys like Mark Texeria sign with NY instead of Baltimore, it is because of factors other than money.
That NY can sign multiple $100 million dollar players and Baltimore can afford maybe one or two is not the deciding factor. It is how wisely you spend your money that matters more.
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
A salary cap doesn't really help
Decreasing the revenue stream advantage of the Red Sox and Yankees would help, I think.
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
word, if you take out those outliers, the range wouldn’t be nearly as bad. but, of course, you can’t take them out and they are part of the data.
I am observing and judging you.
divisional revenue sharing
I’d advocate for divisional revenue sharing which hopefully would serve as a carrot for the Indians and Tigers to rejoin the AL East as well (2 divisions per league, 2 wild cards). This would definitely help the Orioles.
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
of course a salary cap helps.
it doesn’t matter what their revenue stream is if they can’t spend more than everyone else.
The Redskins are the best example of how an owner with big pockets who spends unwisely is doomed to failure. Snyder has to live through his mistakes and gets vilified for them. Cashman jsut writes them off.
A cap doesn’t guarantee competence at the FO-level; it only guarantees that every team gets a fair shot at the best players. And a salary floor forces the Marlins to reinvest in their players instead of lining the owners’ pockets.
"I put a pepper rub on the scallops so you have a little contrast. You have sweetness from the coconut oil and little acidity from the splash of lemon." – Luke Scott
I don't think you can point to the NFL for support
The games are obviously different. The problem with a salary cap is that if one is imposed large revenue teams will find other avenues for their funds, be it in the Rule 4 draft or in international scouting. This is why I think the most important thing that can be done is try to mitigate the revenue stream advantage first and foremost.
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
pittsburgh & green bay
also won 6 super bowls pre-salary cap, fwiw.
Just enjoy the beats.
-Guts
by j.q. higgins on Feb 10, 2011 2:50 PM EST up reply actions
i'll grant...
that the nfl of 67, 68 bears little relation to the game of today economically, but is late 70s/early 80s totally out there?
Just enjoy the beats.
-Guts
by j.q. higgins on Feb 10, 2011 2:55 PM EST up reply actions
Players worked other jobs back then.
The dream was to have the name recognition so you could open a bar or restaurant and people would show up. Like if Rob Neyer would open a Bar & Grill and birdman showed up every day to get a dose of that “evidence and logic”.
by Jonny Pops on Feb 10, 2011 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
NFL Salary cap works differently
because theres only one primary avenue for obtaining players. Adding a salary cap to baseball would also require subjecting all international players to the draft as well, which would be complicated.
Ding ding ding...
What the MLBPA would be wise to do is require that all incoming major league talent be subject to the draft process. I think you could push through with some kind of salary cap/floor and this adjustment to the draft.
And right now I can honestly say y'all are getting a paycheck for nothing. - Josh Howard
by TerroristFistJab on Feb 10, 2011 3:35 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah
With the mass number of amateur players worldwide in countless leagues and organizations, it would be nearly impossible to subject them all to the draft. Sure basketball and hockey have managed to subject all international players to the draft but this is done on a much smaller scale (60 basketball players draft a year vs. what, thousands of baseball players?)
"No Atlantis is too underwater or fictional!"
by Astronaut Mike Dexter on Feb 10, 2011 3:38 PM EST up reply actions
Well the obvious answer is to either expand the draft to...
some absurd number of rounds or just eliminate the draft process completely. But that’s reductive and a bit naive. I’m not a big fan of the draft entry rules in the NBA either.
And right now I can honestly say y'all are getting a paycheck for nothing. - Josh Howard
by TerroristFistJab on Feb 10, 2011 3:45 PM EST up reply actions
Player development makes it complicated too
It takes so much longer for MLB players to develop whereas NFL and NBA players can come in and have an immediate impact. It makes more sense for MLB to just nickel and dime all over the planet and try to find diamonds in the rough.
"No Atlantis is too underwater or fictional!"
by Astronaut Mike Dexter on Feb 10, 2011 3:50 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think the cap really had that much of an effect in the NFL in the first place
They do not have the revenue discrepency that exists in MLB. With national broadcast contracts, the vast majority of their revenue is shared.
The real issue isn’t that one team spends more than another, it’s that one team can generate a lot more revenue from those expenditures. I don’t think a salary cap would solve that much (they would just spend the money on scouting or player development); more revenue sharing would.
by BirdFanInPhilly on Feb 10, 2011 4:12 PM EST up reply actions
so what?
the major problem right now is not that richest teams get all the good prospects. it’s that they poach the best MLB-certified players.
solve that problem first. If those teams wind up with a competitive advantage in the draft and whatnot, that issue can be addressed another day. teams wouldn’t be so desperate to perform well in the draft if they weren’t so afraid of losing their keystone players after five years.
"I put a pepper rub on the scallops so you have a little contrast. You have sweetness from the coconut oil and little acidity from the splash of lemon." – Luke Scott
The current system allows for cheap, cost controlled players,
to be fair game for all the teams. This is one of the remains it is possible for lower revenue teams to compete. The problem with a salary cap is that it seeks to neutralize large revenue teams from paying market value to a number of players. Well run teams pay below market value for production over the roster, primarily by drafting and developing talent and exploiting market inefficiencies, and of course, getting lucky.
A salary cap sounds good and all, but I think the major reason that teams suck is because they are stupid and cheap, not because they are poor. (Though again, I would advocate for larger revenue sharing.)
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
i wanted a salary cap for a long time
but i don’t think that’s the solution anymore. well, it’s one solution, but it isn’t necessarily the right solution. the lack of a salary cap is only a problem for three teams – the orioles, rays, and blue jays.
look at the national league. where exactly does a high payroll help teams in the NL? it doesn’t do anything for the mets and cubs. the astros spent over $100M in 2009 and finished 5th in a weak division.
and why does texas or oakland or seattle or minnesota, or hell, even that hotbed of economic activity detroit care about payroll? sure, they might get outbid for a free agent by the yankees here and there. but those teams have all had success in the last 10 years. they’ve all been competitive at one point or another.
so we can complain all we want, but the owners make a ton of money, the players want as much distributed to them as possible, and most of the teams can find a way to compete without a cap. kansas city isn’t a bust because of payroll. they’re a bust because they’re poorly managed and everyone in baseball knows it. a few owners would love a cap because they want more money for themselves, but they know the union won’t allow it.
so you’re not going to get enough support from the rest of the league, you’re not going to get the owners to stage a lockout, and nobody is going to cry for the o’s, rays, and blue jays… at least not enough for a salary cap.
but they might one day do this: the real solution is to remove divisions. go back to two divisions per league, four division champs and four wild card teams. balance the schedules so each team has to play the yankees and red sox an equal number of times.
it probably doesn’t completely solve the problem, but it puts us on the same footing as the other 11 teams in the AL. that’s really all we can ask for.
and by the way, salary cap or not, we haven’t drafted well enough to compete for well over a decade.
by joet on Feb 10, 2011 2:47 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
we haven’t drafted well enough to compete for well over a decade
please, please can this straw man be put to rest.
having a cap is never about “solving the Orioles” problems", it’s about solving baseball’s problems.
and the lack of a cap certainly affects teams outside of the AL east.
"I put a pepper rub on the scallops so you have a little contrast. You have sweetness from the coconut oil and little acidity from the splash of lemon." – Luke Scott
by zknower on Feb 10, 2011 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
but again, baseball doesn't have a problem
three teams have a problem. i’m not saying there’s no impact of the yankees spending $200M on the rest of baseball. but it’s not really a competitive issue that anyone outside our division cares about.
every team in the AL central and AL west has made the playoffs in the last 10 years. 5 teams haven’t made the playoffs in the last decade. the blue jays and orioles are two of them. baseball doesn’t have a problem. we have a problem. so it’s ludicrous to pretend that our frame of reference doesn’t taint our opinions on this issue. i’ll bet you that seattle and tigers fans and giants fans don’t give a flying fuck how much the yankees spend on payroll. the impact on them is minimal.
by joet on Feb 10, 2011 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
every team in the AL central and AL west has made the playoffs in the last 10 years
That’s new to the Royals. You should probably tell them which year they made the playoffs, because I don’t think they’re aware.
In all seriousness, though, it’s not about holding up some team’s one appearance in the playoffs over a decade as evidence that the system works. It’s about holding up the Yankees’ 11/12 appearances in the playoffs to show that it doesn’t. They achieved this with a handful of homegrown players, so sure, they draft well sometimes, but they don’t make all those appearances with out cherrypicking every dominant player they can get their hands on. The Yankees DO NOT MAKE THE PLAYOFFS this past year without backing up a brinks truck to sign Sabathia, Burnett and Teixeira in the offseason. And if you go back over the decade, you see the same trend in the signings of Giambi, Matsui, A-Rod, etc. The winning Yankees of the 2000s were bought-and-paid-for teams.
Competitive balance would mean that with 30 teams and 8 playoff appearances per year, on average every team would appear in the playoffs 3.2 times over the course of 12 years. But as has already been documented on this site, a full 18 teams fall below that mark over the past 12 years, Inlduing all of the low-payroll teams except two. Nearly a third of the league (again, nearly all low-payroll teams) have 1 or 0 appearances. Meanwhile, the top 8 payroll teams in the league (just over 1/4 of the teams overall) account for nearly half of the postseason appearances (46/96).
Would Seattle and Tigers and San Francisco fans be upset about how much the yankees spend on payroll/ Probably not, since they are borderline top spenders themselves (10th, 11th and 12th). But you can bet the A’s and Indians, who couldn’t afford to outbid the Yankees for Sabathia and GIambi, do.
"I put a pepper rub on the scallops so you have a little contrast. You have sweetness from the coconut oil and little acidity from the splash of lemon." – Luke Scott
by zknower on Feb 10, 2011 6:07 PM EST up reply actions 9 recs
I want to REC this twice.
Just because you know how to read, doesn't mean you'll like the book.
by arlingtonOsFan on Feb 10, 2011 6:13 PM EST up reply actions
for the record...
a sampling of players developed by the yankees that have contributed to their playoff and world series success the last decade or so includes jeter, mariano rivera, andy pettite, robinson cano, jorge posada, phil hughes, joba, alfonso soriano, nick johnson, melky cabrera, brett gardner, bernie williams and chien ming wang. their international scouting has netted them el duque, jose contreras, and godzilla, but also hideki irabu and kei igawa.
while the yankees have definitely made more than their fair share of big ticket signings, i wouldn’t exactly characterize them as an army of mercenaries, either.
Just enjoy the beats.
-Guts
by j.q. higgins on Feb 10, 2011 6:56 PM EST up reply actions
The point is valid.
But so what?
Getting into an Ivy League school is a hell of a lot more certain if you are the offspring of an alumni and/or from a wealthy family. Is it fair? I don’t know. I don’t worry that much about fairness in things like this. Life isn’t fair. If you want something, you don’t think about fairness, you think about doing what it takes to achieve it.
If Baltimore, Minnesota, KC or Tampa Bay want a title, then figure out what it takes to get there and go out and do it. Will the Yankees always have an advantage that having access to greater resources brings? Yep. Doesn’t mean you can’t beat them. It is not that hard to imagine a world where an umpire didn’t blow a call in the 96 league championship and Vlad Guerrero joined Tejada in signing with the O’s or Baltimore kept Mussina and Palmerio and didn’t trade away Schilling or Murray and signed guys like David Wright and Tim Lincicum instead of Lowuen and Billy what’s his face. That Orioles organization is probably looking at 9 AL penants to the Yankees 6.
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
Just because life isn't fair doesn't mean sports shouldn't be fair!
That doesn’t even make sense!
Sports are based on the idea of fairness, unbiased competition, all that jazz. The most common phrase to represent fairness is even derived from sports (level playing field).
Just because you know how to read, doesn't mean you'll like the book.
by arlingtonOsFan on Feb 10, 2011 7:21 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Lets look at your reference to "level playing field"
Ask yourself, is every baseball park – I’m referring strictly to the playing field, not the structure – the same?
Answer – yes and no. They all have the same infield dimensions and I think there are certain minimum distances for the left and right field lines to the fence. But after that, teams have some freedom to tilt things their way. Do you believe in pitching and speed? Then you design your park with deep outfields and plenty of space between the foul lines and the stands. Turf or grass? How do you maintain your mound? Grass long or short? Keep the infield dry and hard or wet it down?
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
What does that have to do with anything?
Having slightly different field dimensions or grass types or foul lines doesn’t make the game unfair for anybody. Every team can do what they want within reason to their stadium.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
People often confuse equal with fair.
Which leads to the concept of handicapping some parties or placing limits on them so that those less qualified can compete.
The point is we are not all created exactly equal and “fairness” becomes subjective. As for the playing field analogy, arlington used the term level playing field. I was pointing out that in baseball the playing field isn’t “level”, but can be adjusted to give the home team some slight or perceived advantage. Does this make the game unfair? I don’t think so. Neither do I think that sometimes having more money to throw at players makes the game intrinsically unfair. There are too many other factors at play.
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
But the dimensions
of a field only give the home team the advantage when they are playing at home – which is only half the time. Same as everybody else – so no advantage. That’s why all good teams (and occasionally even mediocre and bad teams) have better home records than road records. It doesn’t create an unfair advantage. Having one team able to spend $220 M while another team can only spend $60 M IS an unfair advantage.
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
This is how baltimore gets there
We magically become a big market team by increasing our population 3-fold. This increases revenue and marketing as well as resources. Now we have the money in order to compete.
We also need to change our image so people start liking our city for no reason, and people start liking the “idea” of our team.
Now that we’ve figured this out, all we need to do is achieve it! Easy.
World Series, here we come!
yeah, that's the danger of trying to hurry up and type at work
i know the royals haven’t made the playoffs. the point remains though – other teams in the central and west have been able to compete and occasionally play in the postseason in the recent past.
i’m not trying to be rude, but this argument you’re making is naive. this is a multibillion dollar industry. nobody cares if it’s fair. they care about making money. the union, the owners, networks, the media – none of them really want a salary cap, otherwise they would be fighting for it. they’re not. it’s fantasy land to even discuss it. would a salary cap be more “fair”? probably. but it’s not going to happen.
the payroll correlations don’t mean anything when two of the playoff spots are guaranteed to come from outside the AL east. yeah, the yankees make the playoffs a lot. but oakland and seattle and texas can slug it out for their very own playoff spot without any consideration of the AL east at all.
i also dispute the degree to which the indians really care about signing sabathia. while frustrating that everyone wants to go to the yankees for a big paycheck, the indians don’t directly compete with ny. if sabathia goes to ny, that means he doesn’t go to the white sox or tigers. the white sox and indians play the yankees the same amount, right? and the white sox and indians can both win the central without caring what the yankees do. the yankees winning the east doesn’t impact chicago or cleveland in any way.
any frustration that the indians feel over losing sabathia is offset by the fact that they can rally their fans around it, use it as an excuse, pack the stadium when ny comes to town, and generally laugh all the way to the bank because they aren’t locked into a huge contract while they collect ny revenue sharing.
it’s just crazy to get all bent out of shape over fairness in this situation. i was pissed off about it before but i can’t waste the energy any longer. it’s not going to change because too many dollars are at risk. so i’d rather have everyone get behind something that could actually be done without a big lockout or strike – realigning the divisions. they aren’t sacred. hell, they just expanded and realigned a few years ago. so do it again, in a way that keeps baltimore, tampa, and toronto from getting crushed by the unbalanced schedule.
this is a multibillion dollar industry. nobody cares if it’s fair. they care about making money
When teams keep failing to the point of bankruptcy or contraction, I think they may start caring. The disparity in baseball is increasing at an exponential rate and is headed on a way one track into a brick wall.
and this is completely made up
mlb is making plenty of money and they’re redistributing it quite well from the haves to the have nots by most accounts.
i don’t remember any instances of contraction in the 33 years that i’ve been alive.
There is no precedence for it, you're right
but that doesn’t make it any less possible. The longer the Pirates lose, the less money they will make and the less interest fans will have in the team. Whatever revenue shared money gets pumped into Pittsburgh will make little impact on that. The same can be said for a handful of other teams. While contraction may be extreme, relocation is a definite possibility that has happened in recent years. I, for one, don’t want to wake up one morning and see the O’s equipment being loaded onto a Mayflower truck headed for Indianapolis.
and we're back to square 1 sort of
which is that you and i don’t want the orioles to move, but Major League Baseball, the corporation, just wants to make the most money. if the best way to make money is for a couple teams like the royals and pirates to stumble along while boston and ny pull in buckets of cash for everyone to spread around, that’s what they’re going to do. if it’s bad for us and good for the system, they’ll do what’s best for the system every time.
plus, this relocation thing you speak of… i seem to recall the browns and the cardinals and the rams and the colts and the raiders and houston all moving at some point in my life. which mlb teams have moved? montreal…. anyone else? and the nfl has a salary cap, mlb does not.
NFL teams have only mismanagement to blame
or poor markets and little fan interest. I’d gladly swap those problems for the problems of MLB.
I believe most businesses would jump at the chance ..
… to suffer from MLB’s “problems”.
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
If that happens ...
… there will be a list of cities lining up for a team.
And the owners of the franchise will have earned a fortune.
The real money in owning a sports franchise – at least at the major league level – is in asset appreciation. And in instances like the Pirates, I’m willing to bet that they are doing just fine on the year to year balance sheet.
One also has to keep in mind that bookkeeping in sports, particularly baseball is as much magic act as accounting (much like the movie making business). You can own a team that reports losses every year. But if you own the stadium they play in? What is an expense for the team is a revenue for the stadium owner. Own the food and parking rights? Another revenue stream not accounted for under the team’s books. What if you are owned by a media outlet, like the Cubs? That radio and TV deal you sign the team to just happens to be well below market. Meaning the margins for the media part of your portfolio are that much bigger.
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
any frustration that the indians feel over losing sabathia is offset by the fact that they can rally their fans around it, use it as an excuse, pack the stadium when ny comes to town, and generally laugh all the way to the bank because they aren’t locked into a huge contract while they collect ny revenue sharing.
I’m sure they’re a pretty jolly crowd, considering their near 100 loss seasons the past couple years.
the indians won 96 games
and made it to the ALCS as recently as 1997. sabathia pitched in that series and allowed 12 runs in 10.1 innings.
Exactly why I mentioned the past 2 seasons
Sabathia was there then. He’s gone now. I know teams lose superstars in leagues with salary caps as well, but at least that’s not because they have zero chance at affording them.
but this is the opposite of your point
sabathia was there, in cleveland. he’s one of the best pitchers in the league. and he pitched like total crap against boston in the playoffs, when all the big money all stars are supposed to pound the poor little guys into submission, according to you. if you’re going to use sabathia to make your point why the yankees win, you need to acknowledge that he was with cleveland and lost too.
He has also improved since then and was a huge reason the Yankees won a World Series
he single handedly carried the Brewers into the playoffs as well.
that's factually incorrect
in 2007 he had a lower whip and higher ERA+ and K/BB ratio than either of his two years with the yankees. he won his only cy young in 2007. he had a 6.8 WAR, by far the best of his career.
the indians had sabathia at his very peak in 2007. they couldn’t beat boston because the best pitcher in the american league that year pitched like crap in two games that series. not because boston bought all the best players.
OK, I concede that point
but that isn’t really the main issue of this. The main point still remains. Indians fans would love to have the guy still pitching for them, or if they lost out fair and square in and equal market, they may be upset, but it’s much easier to live with.
and i think it doesn't matter
because the white sox and twins and tigers didn’t get him either and it’s those three teams that cleveland needs to beat out to make the playoffs, not the yankees.
Again, it is not about making the playoffs
It’s like if you had to escape a maze in real life, finally did it but then had to fight a dragon and swim through a shark tank to get home. The Twins never advance far in the playoffs for a reason, they are severely overmatched once they escape the maze of their division only to fight superior creatures to get to their ultimate goal.
i don't know
i think most teams, maybe not most fans, but most teams are pretty happy with simply making the playoffs. everyone wants to win the world series, but only one team out of thirty can do it every year, so it’s a little bit greedy and unreasonable to not appreciate the times you got close too.
not that you don’t strive for more, but you do the best you can to give yourself a chance and then see what happens.
I agree
and seeing that there are 30 MLB teams, winning once in 30 years would be average. Obviously that won’t happen, and teams like the Cubs go 100+ without winning. My point is that teams have a significant disadvantage once reaching the playoffs when they have to play the Yankees/Red Sox etc. So getting close is nice and appreciated by fans, but many times making the playoffs does not equal having a legitimate chance at winning the World Series.
i would argue the opposite...
when a team faces the yankees or red sox in the playoffs, i think the depth advantage of the bigger clubs is erased, or at least seriously minimized, by the amount off days/ this is why a team like the dbacks can essentially beat the yankees w/ two starters or look at how the marlins used beckett and their rotation to beat the yankees in the ws.
Just enjoy the beats.
-Guts
by j.q. higgins on Feb 11, 2011 7:01 AM EST up reply actions
You only mention depth of the starting rotation
OK, so maybe another team has 2 comparable top of the rotation pitchers. In a small market, there is a very small chance that team would have anywhere close to the lineup the Yankees put on the field. The advantage will always be there, but luckily for us the Yankees only win about 25% of all World Series instead of 50%+….yay….
i think i added this up right
the yankees are 46-40 in th postseason since 2001. it’s not like they’re destroying all who stand in their way.
the playoffs, as “moneyball” once famously said, are a crapshoot. any team can win a short series. which the yankees have proven, since they’ve only won the world series once in the last ten years, even though they have had a huge payroll and almost always make the tournament.
and you can’t blame their 1996, 1998,19 99, 2000 wins on payroll. i hate the yankees, but those were pretty home-grown teams.
The fans might ...
… but that is not the same as saying team management would.
Fan perception and blind squirrels have a lot in common.
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
three teams have a problem
I’m sure the Twins would count themselves among teams that have a problem when they are smashed by the Yankees in the playoffs every year due to being overmatched by a purchased All Star roster.
come on
the twins have won 90 games or more 5 out of the last 9 years. they’ve made the playoffs 6 out of 9. they’ve been to the alcs. i can’t imagine they’re sitting at home sobbing about it.
While we as Orioles fans would love to be in their position success-wise
I can tell you as a Ravens fan that continuous early playoff exits are not satisfying whatsoever. I love that they compete every year and make the playoffs frequently, but the Super Bowl is the ultimate goal, as is the World Series. The Ravens only have player performance/coaching to blame, which I can live with. I can’t take an uneven playing ground crushing my hopes year in and year out. If the system remains the same, it is very much possible that I will spend the rest of my life watching the O’s suck (maybe occasionally competing for a span of a couple years out of 10 or 15) and I am not ok with that.
Definitely agree
Balanced schedule is really the best we can hope for.
Without repeating too much what everyone else has said, I just think a salary cap would be incredibly hard to structure with how global the sport is.
"No Atlantis is too underwater or fictional!"
by Astronaut Mike Dexter on Feb 10, 2011 3:35 PM EST up reply actions
I am fully in support of a salary cap
balanced schedule is a decent at best plan B. While it would slightly even out the regular season, the Yankees and Red Sox would still claim 2 playoff spots every year, leaving everyone else fighting for the rest. Also, come playoff time, those teams still have a huge advantage over every other team with their pumped up roster.
look at the national league. where exactly does a high payroll help teams in the NL? it doesn’t do anything for the mets and cubs
Just because those teams haven’t won any World Series recently doesn’t mean the extra money doesn’t help. Both teams have signed superstars to huge contracts that other teams in their divisions wouldn’t be able to afford. Who knows if they were on equal financial grounds as other teams that they’d still be as good? Maybe they’d have been last place teams year in and year out because of their poor decisions like the O’s. You can’t just say it doesn’t help them.
and why does texas or oakland or seattle or minnesota, or hell, even that hotbed of economic activity detroit care about payroll? sure, they might get outbid for a free agent by the yankees here and there. but those teams have all had success in the last 10 years. they’ve all been competitive at one point or another.
The key phrase: they’ve all been competitive at one point or another
We have to deal with 2 teams with massive payroll advantages who are both competitive EVERY YEAR, not at one point or another.
you're completely missing the point
nobody said the system is totally fair. i said it wasn’t going to change, and for very good reasons, namely, the fact that only three teams are impacted to the point where it really sucks.
i said “at one point or another” and you’re taking that as though every once in a while a low payroll team makes the playoffs. that’s not true. minnesota and oakland have been competitive a lot in the last 10 years. i don’t know how to say it any more clearly than this – minnesota does not need to compete with the yankees to make the playoffs. neither does oakland or cleveland or seattle or any national league team.
minnesota is in a 5 team division. they need to win more games than detroit, minnesota, kansas city, and chicago. that’s it, nothing more. the yankees can sign pujols, greinke, halladay, and the reincarnation of babe ruth and ted williams, go win 162 games, and they still can’t keep minnesota from winning the central and playing in october.
and as long as minnesota 1) has that opportunity and 2) keeps picking up a check from the yankees every year via revenue sharing, they aren’t going to care about a salary cap to manage competitive balance. i repeat, only the orioles, rays, and blue jays care. that’s it. it doesn’t really matter to anyone else. and they aren’t getting a salary cap for three teams. end of story.
and again
I say the Twins are probably not too happy at being dominated in the playoffs once they escape their watered down division and have to play a team made up of purchased All Stars.
But why shouldn't it be fair?
Again, just because life isn’t fair doesn’t mean sports shouldn’t be fair. It’s a totally artefactual system.
I would posit that sports are supposed to be fair. The whole underlying concept of sport is structural fairness.
Just because you know how to read, doesn't mean you'll like the book.
by arlingtonOsFan on Feb 10, 2011 11:28 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
mlb is a for-profit enterprise
they care about money. yes, in the third grade it’s supposed to be fair. mlb isn’t picking teams at recess and putting the two 4th graders on opposite sides though. they’re trying to get paid. fairness is way down the list of priorities.
you guys can boo-hoo about it all night and all day tomorrow and every other day for the rest of your lives. they won’t institute a salary cap unless there’s a financial incentive for it. and since it’s not even on the table and i think, i’m not sure, but i think that the owners know more about the financial health of mlb than you… well, i let’s just say that you’ll be crying for a good long time before it changes.
Woah woah, simmer down now!
I was posing a philosophical question.
Is it right that a sanctioned monopoly of an inherently fair concept (sport) like MLB, should allow structural inequities and unfairness?
If so, why?
Also, it’s not not on the table. Every other major sport has one, it’s not like it’s some foreign concept that’s coming out of left field.
Just because you know how to read, doesn't mean you'll like the book.
by arlingtonOsFan on Feb 10, 2011 11:45 PM EST up reply actions
i'm simmered.
seriously though, these are playground arguments. the big mean guys won’t play fair! there’s too much money changing hands every year for mlb to care about it from that perspective.
and philosophically, fairness is an ambiguous concept anyway. you define fairness as no structural inequities. well, what if those structural inequities allow some teams to make more money, which is then shared among the rest of the teams?
what if fairness isn’t the goal? what if the goal is simply to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of teams, even if a few get screwed? what if the goal is to grow the pot as big as possible and then divide it up later? wouldn’t some of the teams be better off taking a smaller slice of a much bigger pie?
you’re looking at it like the goal is to put 30 horses on the same track with the same shoes and carrying the same sized jockey and trained for the same amount of time and eating the same oats, then see who’s the fastest. that’s not the goal. the goal is to arrange those horses so the public pays the most money to watch them run.
That's not what I was saying.
I take your point to be: “fairness doesn’t matter, only profit matters”
I agree with you that that is the case. I’m asking whether it should be?
My personal thought is that there should be efforts to increase parity because the fans are pretty important stakeholders in this business, and their concerns should be taken into account as well. In particular because these aren’t publicly traded companies (for the most part) and it’s basically a sanctioned and protected monopoly; which ethically speaking are both reasons to reduce the weight of the profit motive vs. other stakeholders further.
I’m not naively making “playground arguments,” man. I understand how the world works (profit-driven). There’s no reason to misrepresent what I’m saying, I’m just asking philosophicals.
Just because you know how to read, doesn't mean you'll like the book.
by arlingtonOsFan on Feb 11, 2011 12:32 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
look, i don't think you're wrong
i just don’t think it’s realistic. do i want everyone to start out on equal footing? of course. i also want schools in the ghetto to be the same quality as schools in wealthy suburbs. i want world peace. these are not difficult things to agree with. everyone wants these things. but economics get in the way.
also, if you want to go completely philosophical, you need to be able to decide whose rights need to be protected most. you’re looking only at the teams in mlb, which are protected by an anti-trust exemption, and should therefore have a level playing field. what about the players? what about their right to sell their skills to the highest bidder? why should they have an artificially capped income?
i don’t know what you do for a living, but if someone was willing to pay you 3X as much as you make today, why shouldn’t you have the right to earn that money? if your employer said, you know AOF, you made me $10M last year. i’d pay you $2M a year to do what you’re doing now, but i’m not allowed – is that fair to you?
I agree with all of your points.
I don’t really have a dog in this fight other than the one we all have (aka beleaguered O’s fan).
I think the discussion on what fairness should mean — and whether it is or should be important — in pro sports is an interesting one from a bunch of different angles beyond just, “this is how it is and will continue to be.” (Which obviously, is how it is and will continue to be)
I do think we can all agree that the fans’ concerns are all too often a discarded consideration among the owners and players. The anti-trust exemption sees to that.
I’m also a little keyed up because this is my third night in the office past midnight this week and I want to shoot someone. I would happily take three times what I’m being payed now to model complex market systems in fucking excel while poring through countless 500 page, unsearchable public utility commission reports for 3 lines worth of information. All the while being yelled at by people who deal with one or two states that I’m not getting back to them quickly enough, when I am by myself handling all of or information on wind in every state, and Canada, and emerging solar markets, and carbon. People move shockingly quickly from “Wow! This is great information! These insights are great!” to “Hey! Why don’t you have everything I want at your fingertips all the time!?!”
God I want a beer.
Just because you know how to read, doesn't mean you'll like the book.
by arlingtonOsFan on Feb 11, 2011 1:52 AM EST up reply actions
...how do I tell them that because of the unfreezing process I have no internal monologue?
Just because you know how to read, doesn't mean you'll like the book.
by arlingtonOsFan on Feb 11, 2011 2:09 AM EST up reply actions
But on the playground
you can pay off bigger kids with candy to beat the snot out of the ones bothering you. At least I did. Can’t do that in MLB.
"I find you to be ... disturbingly great." - Steven Tyler
Didn't Steinbrenner once try to frame one of his own players?
Just because you know how to read, doesn't mean you'll like the book.
by arlingtonOsFan on Feb 11, 2011 10:18 AM EST up reply actions
Or you can keep going up against them.
Either you find out they aren’t as tough as they think they are and win,
you earn their respect, which is its own form of winning,
they get tired or bored of beating on you and avoid you,
or you get lucky and get in that first kick to the nuts.
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
Or you learn
that if you can out run them for the first 100 yards, they’re usually too fat and stupid to keep running after you. Then you go to states two years in HS in cross country. YMMV, of course.
"I find you to be ... disturbingly great." - Steven Tyler
I'd like to say that I utilized the perseverance method ...
… but the out run them method was usually the one I resorted to.
Actually, I didn’t get into fights that much, which is surprising considering I was never any good at keeping my mouth shut. The only one I can remember running from was in jr HS. She was built like Ray Nitschkie and scared the bejesus out me.
I do remember the one where a couple of DeMatha football players came out and pounded on me. There were 4 of them and the first guy blindsided me. None of the guys I went to the party did a thing after finding out. It was one of my female friends that ripped into the guys who jumped me. It was worth having a sore jaw for a week to watch Karen verbally cut to peices those guys.
Several years later I was wondering aloud to a couple of my younger brothers about how I seemed to have formed more friendships with their classmates than I ever did with my own. They told me it was likely because a lot of the guys I hung out with were assholes. I really should go back for one of the reunions. A big reason I haven’t is my class has one of the worse records for setting them up. Maybe my brothers were right.
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
Where do you get the idea that the primary concept of sport ...
… is fairness?
Fairness is an artifact in sports, not an underlying concept.
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
What?
“A sport is an organized, competitive, entertaining, and skillful activity requiring commitment, strategy, and fair play, in which a winner can be defined by objective means.”
I googled sports and that was literally the first line that came up.
Just because you know how to read, doesn't mean you'll like the book.
by arlingtonOsFan on Feb 11, 2011 11:46 AM EST up reply actions
they won’t institute a salary cap unless there’s a financial incentive for it.
What would be the problem with capping it at 125 million or so? Teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels etc would still have a slight advantage over most teams, but the advantage would be lessened and they’d be forced to choose between A Rod and Teixeira or between CC and Burnett instead of having all of the above. I highly doubt it would hurt their profits in any way, in fact, they’d still most likely make the same amount of money and save a ton on payroll.
the players union won't allow it
that’s the problem and it’s not going away. you’re only looking at it from the side of the employers.
Why can't fans go on strike then, damnit?
It makes me sick. We only pay their entire salaries, only to get screwed over by them and the owners.
by YeahDonnie on Feb 11, 2011 12:28 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
i think the point is, that MLB is too stupid to realize that having 30 competitive teams might actually be MORE profitable than than the over-hyped NYY/BOS rivalry
again… look at the NFL. The latest super bowl was the most watched thing on TV ever watched in the US. It was by two teams that continue to exist only by virtue of the fact that the NFL smartly shares revenue between all teams and has a salary cap.
i don't buy that
i think neyer actually wrote about this once, so i may be stealing it from him, but nfl teams are nationally popular while mlb teams are regionally popular. there are just too many teams playing too many games for an indians fan to get worked up about san fran vs. atlanta in mid june.
but the 49ers playing the falcons on MNF is going to get huge ratings. not because both teams are good – they’re not. because every single game is so important in football. it’s a shorter season, so every game has more impact. making all the baseball teams even wouldn’t make people watch random games the way they do in football.
baseball also has 10 times more games
and 10 times more opportunites to profit, so they don’t rely on those MNF type of situations.
The underlying concept of sport is:
1) as a means to compete without resorting to warfare
2) as a means to train or maintain physical fitness
3) as a means to relax and have fun
4) as a means to make money
Fairness, at best, barely cracks the top 5 underlying concepts.
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
That's a strange definition.
What’s the point of all the rules against cheating or doing all the other things that give one side an unfair advantage if fairness isn’t crucial to sport?
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
for what it's worth, i do think fairness is crucial to sport
but we need to be realistic about what constitutes fair vs. unfair. for example, it’s not fair for the yankees to use metal bats and the orioles to only be able to use wood. most things that happen on the field have regulations that govern what is fair and what is not.
player acquisition has been determined to be a completely separate topic – one that is driven by economics, not philosophical ideals.
The lack of competativeness on the part of the Orioles ...
… cannot be placed primarily on the fact we compete with NY and Boston.
That’s either naive or just plain ignorant.
The fact Baltimore faces tougher competition is not the reason we have seen 13 consecutive losing seasons.
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
Interesting re: AM's extension
I think it’s really compelling that Rob believes the Orioles should have extended AM before the off-season. I thought AM’s off-season of a year ago was as close to disasterous as it gets.
As mentioned a gazillion times, AM has made a few nice moves (Reynolds and Hardy), but on balance he needs to go.
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
i think he's a great wheeler-dealer...
but there are glaringly obvious phases of his game that could use some fine tuning. exhibitz a-z is acquiring free agents. i know you’d argue his approach to international dev is sorely lacking, as well.
Just enjoy the beats.
-Guts
by j.q. higgins on Feb 10, 2011 2:23 PM EST up reply actions
Completely agree and I made this point about a week ago
He’s great at taking advantage of greedy mid-market teams having good years who want to try to push for a rare playoff push, but scouting, player development, free agency could all use work.
"No Atlantis is too underwater or fictional!"
by Astronaut Mike Dexter on Feb 10, 2011 3:26 PM EST up reply actions
I wish someone could just give me a straight answer about Wieters for once
“he’ll be good, but he won’t be REALLY good” is about the most concrete thing I’ve gotten lately. I don’t want to invest all of this time into him if he’s just going to rip my heart out. we didn’t draft him to be Gregg freakin Zaun, we drafted him to be the best in the business.
Get 'em.
"it ain't no sin in goin to da scrip club."
Music City Miracles Hall Of Fame, Class of 2010
I still think people give up on top prospects too soon
Not all prospects have cookie cutter progressions. They progress, regress and breakout randomly. People got way too high on bell after his great year when we traded for him and are too down on him now.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Feb 10, 2011 2:10 PM EST up reply actions
don't get me wrong, I still have faith for Wieters and Jones
but every expert and their grandmother keeps telling me they’ll bust something fierce. hopefully Bell can offer something as well, I’d love to have a slugging third baseman with some solid D.
Get 'em.
"it ain't no sin in goin to da scrip club."
Music City Miracles Hall Of Fame, Class of 2010
by danielreese05 on Feb 10, 2011 2:12 PM EST up reply actions
There are still lots of believers in Wieters, I think.
You don’t have to be a professional to see where the potential is in Wieters. Watch him swing a bat and it just looks smooth. If he can put it together and connect for power, that’s still going to be pretty special.
Maybe he doesn’t, but maybe he does, and if he does, then I think Matt Wieters Facts are going to make a comeback.
"One way to lower a flag to half-mast is just to lower the flag. There's another way, though. You can raise the pole to twice its original height." - Infinite Jest
by Eat More Esskay on Feb 10, 2011 2:20 PM EST up reply actions
Wieters didn't look as smooth last year IMO
he was hitting a lot of balls into the ground, or at least more so than last year. his hands were rolling over the ball a lot and he was coming around too much. simply put; his swing wasn’t as compact. it’s really a very simple mechanical error to correct but it’s also crucial.
Get 'em.
"it ain't no sin in goin to da scrip club."
Music City Miracles Hall Of Fame, Class of 2010
by danielreese05 on Feb 10, 2011 2:23 PM EST up reply actions
We will know a lot more about Wieters after this year
He’s said his focus is offense. If he flourishes, I think we can set our minds at ease. If he’s hitting .260 with 15 HRs and a worse K/BB ratio, then we know we may have a long-term problem.
"I find you to be ... disturbingly great." - Steven Tyler
Yeah... if he doesn't develop this year, we're in a bit of a pickle.
"One way to lower a flag to half-mast is just to lower the flag. There's another way, though. You can raise the pole to twice its original height." - Infinite Jest
by Eat More Esskay on Feb 10, 2011 5:19 PM EST up reply actions
I think we drafted him because we thought he was the best player to draft right there.
Then the franchise needed something to hype, so it was Wieters – and as fans we needed something to hype too.
That said, I get sad when MASN puts up graphics like, comparing Wieters to Jason Varitek. No, MASN. If Wieters’ ceiling is Varitek, I am disappointed.
"One way to lower a flag to half-mast is just to lower the flag. There's another way, though. You can raise the pole to twice its original height." - Infinite Jest
by Eat More Esskay on Feb 10, 2011 2:14 PM EST up reply actions
but think about the INTANGIBLES!
Get 'em.
"it ain't no sin in goin to da scrip club."
Music City Miracles Hall Of Fame, Class of 2010
by danielreese05 on Feb 10, 2011 2:16 PM EST up reply actions
But they went to the same school!
Who else would you possible compare him to!?
"things like locig and prrofreading are actually valued here" - zknower
Jarret Jack?
Just because you know how to read, doesn't mean you'll like the book.
by arlingtonOsFan on Feb 11, 2011 10:35 AM EST up reply actions
follow up WAR question
I’d love to know Rob’s thoughts on the current defensive metrics with the strengths and flaws of each. I’ve actually been more impressed with UZR as a factor of WAR given correlation between WAR and actual win totals, though maybe I’m wrong about the correlation there.
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
The chicken or the egg...
It’s Andy MacPhail’s last year on his contract. Does he deserve an extension from the Orioles?
Before this winter I would have said yes. Now I’m on the fence, and would wait and see how this season goes.
Say Andy had got our infield this year to be Pujols, Utley, Hanley Ramirez, Longoria and they all do poorly. If he has set us up to do well, them underperforming is NOTHING that he can control. You can only go off of what they have done and what they can do. What they actually do is on the players. I find it hard to “wait and see” if MacPhail’s contract will be extended, when it is totally contingent on how the players perform, when he cannot do anything with them after we have acquired them. (I know that they can be traded, sent down etc, but even playing bad they will be with us a while). My point is, if he is doing his job and setting us up correctly, it is hard not to give him an extension. He has given us every opportunity to win with the young arms and trade acquisitions, now it is on the players. If we sign all the best prospects it makes us happy with him and if they dont pan out, we are unhappy with him…it’s not his responsibility to make them good, but rather to get them.
You cant spell POOP without O's
Then why have a GM at all?
Consider, if a GM has no information that we cannot determine with basic analysis on player quality, we are paying them way too much money to do something we would do for free. Our statistics can advise us of win GMs make particularly good or poor decisions, but there can be GMs that are smarter than us, and those teams will outperform our expectations.
To actually make the trades and potential returns on players
During the season, player performance is more of a reflection on the manager and other coaches. If you have historically good players and are being used poorly, that is on the player (of course) but also on the coaches, MUCH more than the GM.
You cant spell POOP without O's
But if we could easily determine how much any player is worth without much effort, those trades would be simple. If you believe that a GM can’t observe ability in players that we cannot observe (either from superior skill or effort), then a GM is a waste of money (so is scouting for that matter).
Any and every GM and scout would agree on the talents and potential
A good player is good player and a horse is a horse of course of course. That is a given. Now, if me as a GM goes out and gets these players with great potential and they dont pan out (Ben McDonald), you cant blame me for them sucking. You could however blame me if I didnt make an effort to get a great player or I gave up too much to get them. For example if I was Bill Bavasi (Mariners old GM) I would expect get flak for trading for Bedard even if he won us 20 games. That trade was asinine.
You make trades based on need but if it takes their UZR or WAR statistics to quantify a “return” then thats crap. I am trading because I believe that they can make my team better. You can only judge me on what players I get. Hindsight is 20/20. Yeah the Belle and Sosa signings look bad now but at the time we all were excited. (Save for the pay and what we could have gotten with that money otherwise). We wanted a slugger and we got one and even if they blew, the GM did his job.
We drafted Machado. We are all happy. Now if he sucks in 5 years, do we look back and say our front office sucked? I dont think we can that easily. We got the best player available and it filled our need. If he doesnt pan out, that is hard to look back and say, well MacPhail and the others should have known better. To put it into football terms, who the hell would have thought Tom effing Brady would have done anything?
You cant spell POOP without O's
That was an impressive string of replying to yourself...
I am eating you, motherfucker. You cannot hurt me. - PhilR8
Well it wasnt replying to myself, it was actually to math_geek. I was just proving my point...
You cant spell POOP without O's
One of the dumbest positions I’ve seen by smart statistically oriented baseball fans is the idea that Team wins have no benefit unless the team makes the playoffs or can win the world series or something like that. That making a 75 win team into a 77 win team is completely irrelevant. While it’s absolutely the case that wins are worth a lot more to playoff competing teams, I think it’s really difficult to make a case that wins don’t affect revenue. We look at it and say no-one will go to more baseball games if they are going to a 77 win team instead of a 75 win team and that makes intuitive sense (much like it makes intuitive sense that pitchers who win more games are better), but this fails on logical construction. There’s no magic win threshhold that suddenly fans start going to games, but everyone would rather go to a 90 win team game then a 70 win team game. And I would imagine most people would rather go to a 70 win team game then a 50 win team game. But there’s no magic point (and that includes 80 to 82 wins) where all of a sudden there’s a magic shift. Instead it occurs with gradual change over time. One win really does increase revenue, and if that’s hard to believe, imagine going to a game, seeing your team win, and that positive feeling causing you personally to go to another baseball game in the future.
We have little ability to measure the effect of team wins on revenue, but we do have the ability to see what it costs to buy a win on average. We can assume Economic standards and decide that if the marginal cost of one win is 4.5 million dollars, then that is how much it benefits the team (with the caveat that some teams will pay for wins for some reason other than profit and that some teams will get more significant revenue boosts from wins than others) Thereby if adding Vladimir Guerrero actually does make the team 2 wins better, it will turn out to be a good contract. The difficult part is that it is not sufficient for him to be a 2 win player, he must actually make the team 2 wins better when accounting for the non-replacement level talent he’s replacing.
I disagree
I think there is a magic threshold, but its not a specific number. Its the difference between being competitive for a playoff spot and not. once your in the 70-85 win area, I’d suspect there’s no functional difference in how many games you win until you can get out of that range and at least compete for a wild card. If you aren’t going to be at that level, any resources that only get you close are wasted.
depends on division too
I would say its better stated as within 5-7 games of the wildcard
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Feb 10, 2011 2:31 PM EST up reply actions
Really? So is it if team is currently within 5 games of wild card then attendance is high, but if they are not then attendance is low?
That STILL means that marginal wins generate marginal revenue. As teams with more wins overall will stay within 5 games of the Wild Card longer than teams with fewer wins. Thereby getting a longer period of high attendance before fans give up on the team’s ability to make it to the playoffs.
sorry that was more my guesstimation
I would imagine that being in a playoff race would boost attendence and that being out of contention woudl ruin it.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Feb 10, 2011 2:39 PM EST up reply actions
I can generalize my response to everyone starts out in the playoff race and if being in the playoff hunt leads to more revenue, then marginal wins always help because they genearlly lead to the team being in the playoff hunt for longer.
probably fair
but that also means for us that we have to be a good bit better to even stay in contention
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Feb 10, 2011 2:42 PM EST up reply actions
I suspect that’s true, but there’s no guarantee, especially if the Rays falter (as the Yankees are not going to be good this year)
I also know that I will be going to more baseball games this year. I don’t know if I’m going to go to more games because of increased disposable income or because the team will be better and more fun to watch? How do you differentiate between the two?
The yankees will still be good
Tex, Cano and A-Rod are still better than any of our hitters. CC, Hughes, Burnett is still better than our top 3 pitchers.
The Yankees will still get high 80’s or low 90’s wins. Also the Ray’s will still be good, they have 5 above average pitchers, you win games that way.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Feb 10, 2011 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
yanks pitchers...
do you really buy that? cc for sure, but i think matusz is better than hughes for sure and guts has overall been better since he gained a starting role w/ the o’s.
Just enjoy the beats.
-Guts
by j.q. higgins on Feb 10, 2011 2:58 PM EST up reply actions
CC > Matusz
Hughes > Guthrie
Burnett ~ 3E1N, Arrieta/Tillman, Duke
Granted our 4/5 pitchers probably beat theirs. Dont forget they scored 41 more runs than anybody else in baseball. They’ll get around 90 wins barring major injuries all over the place
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Feb 10, 2011 3:06 PM EST up reply actions
when I first looked at Arrieta
I thought Burnett was probably his ultimate ceiling. I just really want that guy to do well.
Get 'em.
"it ain't no sin in goin to da scrip club."
Music City Miracles Hall Of Fame, Class of 2010
by danielreese05 on Feb 10, 2011 3:09 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not sure how much better Hughes is than Guthrie
The Yankees have a better rotation than the Orioles because of Sabathia. But the Yankees rotation is going to be their achilles heel in 2011.
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
he is not better than guthrie.
Just enjoy the beats.
-Guts
by j.q. higgins on Feb 10, 2011 4:42 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not sure he is either,
But FIP thinks Hughes is better than Guts. Though FIP has always hated Guts. Not sure why.
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
which is certainly not the case.
Just enjoy the beats.
-Guts
by j.q. higgins on Feb 10, 2011 4:45 PM EST up reply actions
They go nutz for Gutz
Just because you know how to read, doesn't mean you'll like the book.
by arlingtonOsFan on Feb 10, 2011 4:45 PM EST up reply actions
and for lionel's huts!
Just enjoy the beats.
-Guts
by j.q. higgins on Feb 10, 2011 4:46 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
maybe the position players step up the fielding when he pitches
to make up for the fact they cant hit for shit when he’s on the mound
indeed, i would.
Just enjoy the beats.
-Guts
by j.q. higgins on Feb 10, 2011 4:59 PM EST up reply actions
By the ASG
I’m betting our #3 may be better than their #3
"I find you to be ... disturbingly great." - Steven Tyler
who exactly IS our 3?
I assume that Guthrie’s the ace, Duke or Matusz get the 2 (assuming Duke stays healthy coming out of ST) and the other goes to the 3. or is Arrieta in the running as well?
Get 'em.
"it ain't no sin in goin to da scrip club."
Music City Miracles Hall Of Fame, Class of 2010
by danielreese05 on Feb 10, 2011 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
so you think he lasts until the ASG?
or does Burnett just flame out that hard?
Get 'em.
"it ain't no sin in goin to da scrip club."
Music City Miracles Hall Of Fame, Class of 2010
by danielreese05 on Feb 10, 2011 5:24 PM EST up reply actions
I think his best days are far behind him
especially if Montero takes over this year. dude can’t field worth a lick and if Burnett is anywhere near as wild as he was last year it’s game over for him.
Get 'em.
"it ain't no sin in goin to da scrip club."
Music City Miracles Hall Of Fame, Class of 2010
by danielreese05 on Feb 10, 2011 5:26 PM EST up reply actions
if you're not gonna use his nickname
Can you at least learn to spell his name?
I should like to call him The Dutch Boy.
I guess I simply am awash in ignorance of Alfredo Simon. -James F
Vanden Hurk?
he’s Dutch right?
Get 'em.
"it ain't no sin in goin to da scrip club."
Music City Miracles Hall Of Fame, Class of 2010
by danielreese05 on Feb 10, 2011 5:28 PM EST up reply actions
I dont give two shits if the orioles win 10 more games than last year.
2011 and 2012 are mutually exclusive. Is it a possible barometer to how well we can do in 2012, possibly, but remember, the rays won 31 more games from 2007 to 2008. Now say they went 10-152 and then went 41-121? Does not mean a DAMN THING. Give me playoffs or give me death.
You cant spell POOP without O's
Sure it would have meant something. Could you imagine watching a 10 win team. I wouldn’t even leave MASN on while I was studying.
well, that was a slight exaggeration.
that turn around was a record and I cant imagine any team doing that again. Say they went from 10 to 20 wins, thats nothing. All I care about is playoffs.
You cant spell POOP without O's
i'm pretty confused by your post
you start off by saying that wins in the middle (the 77-82 range) matter or benefit the team, then you conclude, “We have little ability to measure the effect of team wins on revenue.” Then you discuss how much the markets pays for a win which doesn’t really connect with your previous argument.
I am observing and judging you.
Perhaps I should have said "We have little ability to directly measure the magnitude of the effect of team wins on revenue, so we do it indirectly by measuring how much teams pay for wins"
Why is everyone focusing on the veterans as a bad thing in terms of rebuilding?
We signed a bunch of veteran bullpen arms and bats to one year deals. Celebrate! Anyone remember these trades from last year?
Matt Capps for Wilson Ramos.
James McDonald and Andrew Lambo for Octavio Dotel
3 pitching prospects for D. Lee
Yunel Escobar for Alex Gonzalez
Are you frickin’ kidding me? So the Orioles are morons for signing Lee, Guerrero, Uehara, Gregg, and Hardy?
If they’re extremely lucky, they’ll be able to get good deals for 3-4 of them…probably at least one or two.
Yeah, the Front Office can’t say, “We signed Lee because we hope he has a bounceback year and nets us a gigantic haul by some desperate team at the trade deadline!” They have to say the garbage about wanting to improve and protection for the young players and everything else.
But looking at some of the deals made last year and the potential haul the Orioles could get this year, signing these aging veterans to one year deals is pretty damn smart.
please tell me that the hunter you are a fan of is Jim
I guess I simply am awash in ignorance of Alfredo Simon. -James F
I'd be OK with Catfish
It’s been long enough.
"I find you to be ... disturbingly great." - Steven Tyler
or the good Dr. Thompson
"There you go. Givin' a fuck when it ain't your turn to give a fuck." ~ 'Bunk' Moreland
by PBR me ASAP! on Feb 10, 2011 5:22 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think anyone is really questioning the Lee signing
and definitely not Uehara. Hardy was also a widely applauded move, since we gave up very little to acquire him and Izzy was the only real alternative.
The issue is with the Gregg and Guerrero deals, both of which are being dramatically overpaid when there are cheaper options that may be able to contribute to the team long term.
and the overpays to those guys
as well as, in Vlad’s case at least, age, make trading them midseason a little far-fetched, in my opinion.
FROG SAYS PROTECT HOME
not to mention Vlad is DH
how many teams need a DH that are still in contention?
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Feb 10, 2011 2:48 PM EST up reply actions
true
but DHs are pretty easy to find, and even if a team does turn to the trade market for one, there could be ones available that are better options than Guerrero. Him getting traded is not something we should bank on
FROG SAYS PROTECT HOME
I mean, if we weren’t overpaying him I would feel a trade was very possible. If we were willing to eat the cash off of our mistake, I think there’s a shot.
Trade Markets are hard to predict. See Wells, Vernon
the macca...
has shown a willingness to eat dollars.
Just enjoy the beats.
-Guts
by j.q. higgins on Feb 10, 2011 3:06 PM EST up reply actions
Even then, i think an argument banking on the trade is flawed
If your talking about signing Vlad in order to obtain prospects, you have to carry that cash forward when figuring out that prospects future value. The benefit of stockpiling young talent is mitigated if you’re spending 4 million dollars to acquire each one (outside of true top-tier talent, which isn’t a reasonable return for Vlad)
Tell me how healthy Jorge Posada is on July 20
and you have your answer
"I find you to be ... disturbingly great." - Steven Tyler
Yanks swapping awful knees for less bad knees
I like it!
Get 'em.
"it ain't no sin in goin to da scrip club."
Music City Miracles Hall Of Fame, Class of 2010
by danielreese05 on Feb 10, 2011 5:17 PM EST up reply actions
This thread got very intense very quickly, didn't it?
I mean, that really got outta hand fast!
Just because you know how to read, doesn't mean you'll like the book.
yea it did
The natives are restless.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Feb 10, 2011 3:11 PM EST up reply actions
We desperately need real baseball games
by kba26 on Feb 10, 2011 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
That's exactly what we need
It always gets kinda ugly around here the longer the offseason drags on.
I guess I simply am awash in ignorance of Alfredo Simon. -James F
oh sure
Stacey can talk all about our moms, but if I bring up Stacey’s Mom just once….
FROG SAYS PROTECT HOME
You mean the one that has it going on?
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
by timg56 on Feb 10, 2011 5:02 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
...
Just because you know how to read, doesn't mean you'll like the book.
by arlingtonOsFan on Feb 10, 2011 5:30 PM EST up reply actions
I was thinking along the lines of that pop song ...
… which I can’t get out of my head since I saw some reference to Stacey’s mom.
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
haha, the xkcd is a reference to that song as well...
The song is about a tweenage kid (Stacey’s boyfriend, presumably) who has a MILF crush on her single mom.
The xkcd comic is her departed dad’s warning to the narrator of the song.
I’m singing this at karaoke tomorrow.
Just because you know how to read, doesn't mean you'll like the book.
by arlingtonOsFan on Feb 10, 2011 5:43 PM EST up reply actions
I was wondering if that was the connection.
I can’t remember to that level of detail.
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
I'm just waiting for MLB the Show.
Leader of the "Draft Julio Jones Campaign"
by BaltimoreSportsFan on Feb 10, 2011 3:49 PM EST up reply actions
i think we need...
the 1980s action movie version of fred thompson (not the senator) to come in here and establish order w/ his blustery baritone.
Just enjoy the beats.
-Guts
by j.q. higgins on Feb 10, 2011 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
"now you monkeys...
….are going to share the same laptop for a day and learn to stop yur bitchin’ while yur bloggin’"
now, jonny...
Just enjoy the beats.
-Guts
by j.q. higgins on Feb 10, 2011 3:23 PM EST up reply actions
Are we under siege?
"One way to lower a flag to half-mast is just to lower the flag. There's another way, though. You can raise the pole to twice its original height." - Infinite Jest
by Eat More Esskay on Feb 10, 2011 3:18 PM EST up reply actions
look around, man!
Just enjoy the beats.
-Guts
by j.q. higgins on Feb 10, 2011 3:22 PM EST up reply actions
yeah,
i went from being elated rob was here to pissed off rather quickly.
I am observing and judging you.
I know, right?
When all of the sniping started I wanted to be like, “We have company!”
I guess I simply am awash in ignorance of Alfredo Simon. -James F
I always felt horrible
as a kid when my parents would have people over, then I’d get into a bickering fight with my siblings and embarrass them.
…yes in this anecdotal analogy you’re the mom.
Just because you know how to read, doesn't mean you'll like the book.
by arlingtonOsFan on Feb 10, 2011 3:54 PM EST up reply actions
this is why we can't have nice things!
Just enjoy the beats.
-Guts
by j.q. higgins on Feb 10, 2011 3:56 PM EST up reply actions
Well I don't think he knew he was being sent into a war zone...
and that he would be that runner from Saving Private Ryan.
"Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand.."
i don’t he minds. he probably he hears much more vicious attacks in his chats but he doesn’t publish them.
I am observing and judging you.
But I imagine most of those are internet tough guys
with lines like: “Hey, moron, you stink!”
He was placed in the middle of an ongoing internet battle where people have spent the last few weeks sharpening their rhetoric, and arguing these points tooth and nail. He probably thought he was answering a couple of innocuous questions, not realizing that people are so entrenched in different camps that any answer to these seemingly simple questions would instantly alienate himself from the other side (if they hadn’t already labeled him before this post).
I am all for the debate that’s been ongoing here, it’s been great to read, and participate in. But we know the score. We know who’s on which side, and what they believe in, and the manner in which they go about making their points. He doesn’t. So, when he responded once in the thread, and all hell broke loose, I don’t begrudge him for sitting the rest of this one out.
Or, you know, he could be doing something else… like I should be.
"Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand.."
Oh man...
You guys, being able to discuss this stuff freely and openly is one of the great things about this medium. I don’t understand why some of you seem afraid of that.
It's not the discussion that gets to me
It’s the tone.
I guess I simply am awash in ignorance of Alfredo Simon. -James F
ooop...
….watch your tone! things are getting out of hand!
As Z pointed out above, you’re pretty quick to act aggrieved and concerned about tone for someone just as prone to getting into it with an argument. Go take a look in the mirror.
all of things i've said in this thread has been pretty friendly
it wasn’t until i was accused of being a hypocrite that i got upset. other than that, please point out where i acted aggrieved. thanks.
I am observing and judging you.
The tone works for you...
…you must recognize that to an extent.
Blogs need characters. Just like any other format.
I don't know about that
You know that generally I have nothing but love for you, JP, but lately it seems that every conversation on here immediately turns ugly. I’m not saying it’s just you, it’s plenty of people. And I think some of that snark is all well and good, but lately that’s all it is. And it’s not enjoyable for me one bit so I’m certain it’s not enjoyable for some other people either.
As I said before about things getting ugly during the off-season, I know that’s part of it. It’s hard to talk about the same things over and over again without going to that extreme, especially with a team so perennially in the tank. It’s hard to spend six months with each other when there is no baseball. So I’m willing to chalk some of it up to that, but it has gotten worse than it normally is, and at some point it makes me not even want to check in here, which is fucked up since it’s my blog.
I guess I simply am awash in ignorance of Alfredo Simon. -James F
by Stacey on Feb 10, 2011 4:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I certainly won’t say I’ve never used snark before. But I will say I really try to keep it to a minimum. I do PLENTY of arguing around here. But I do try to keep my disagreements to the logic and facts at hand, point out agreements when I can, and above all, avoid personal attacks. Now I’m sure Z and JP don’t agree and they have a certain perception of me and that’s fine. I’ve meet Z in person. I certainly respect his opinion, even the negative ones. JP? Never met him so I won’t even pretend I can comment anything about him.
I am observing and judging you.
JP is the sweetest heart you can imagine in person
Totally charming.
This is my honest opinion.
I guess I simply am awash in ignorance of Alfredo Simon. -James F
by Stacey on Feb 10, 2011 5:06 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I've found that meeting someone face to face is important.
And not just in the context of blogs.
There is so much that doesn’t get communicated and it is easy for people to jump to conclusions or get offended or just ticked off. I think we all agree that a lot of stuff doesn’t translate well – sarcasim being a frequent example. When there is so much room for miscommunication, the fact you have met face to face can often let you give the other person the benefit of doubt.
Jonny Pop is one of the best at projecting a condescending persona, at least when you find yourself on the other side of an argument with him. I can see it getting under the skin. I try to keep in mind that I have never met him and therefore don’t really know what sort of person he is. Besides, it can be entertaining to take up the challenge and give back a little of what gets dished out.
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
by timg56 on Feb 10, 2011 5:17 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
can't say i disagree either.
a lot of nuance of communication gets lost on the internet. and the “persona” of jp online is very probably very different than the jp in person.
I am observing and judging you.
You mean like this...
I’m only kidding (I think)
"No Atlantis is too underwater or fictional!"
by Astronaut Mike Dexter on Feb 10, 2011 9:22 PM EST up reply actions
And one with which I concur
"I find you to be ... disturbingly great." - Steven Tyler
by duck on Feb 10, 2011 5:19 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
you know what
i bet he is. a lot of context is stripped away on the internet. people use the anonymity of the internet. in person, a lot of people are sweethearts.
I am observing and judging you.
Have you considered identity theft.
I hear it works with credit cards.
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
Now I’m sure Z and JP don’t agree and they have a certain perception of me and that’s fine.
Well, you’d be wrong there. I’ve never seen you engage in a personal attack that I can recall. But I don’t think I do either. Snark≠personal attack in my world.
"I put a pepper rub on the scallops so you have a little contrast. You have sweetness from the coconut oil and little acidity from the splash of lemon." – Luke Scott
fine,
And birdman, next time you say others are being "snarky", remember to look in the mirror.
I certainly don’t think I made any snarky comments here nor do I appreciate the implication that I’m being hypocrite.
I am observing and judging you.
We need to start arguing...
…because we’re agreeing way too much lately.
I don’t consider this personal either. It’s blog talk – which to me is a sort of a Symposium of ideas. I mean, sure it can get heated and cause some friction. But in the end it’s words on a screen. I think it’s important to be able to speak passionately about something you’re passionate about.
The very foundations of entertainment...
….in literature are built out of conflict. In a format such as this that conflict can used to better understand some things we’re all passionate about through debate.
In this thread I was able to (briefly, since he bounced) debate a national sports writer over a few points of his which I disagreed with. I think that’s a great thing about this technology. People get to challenge others views and reasoning and in the end we can all, hopefully, be the wiser for it.
(And don’t mistake this for me saying that because I’m pontificating on here about salary caps or Guerrero or what not that that in itself is the better understanding we’re reaching. Far from it. In the course of that debate some great points came out all around and from people who may have just been sitting on the sidelines, lurking, if the passion level wasn’t upped a few notches.)
This also entertained a lot of people on here. I talk some smack on Rob Neyer. Oh Snap, Rob Neyer is reading and gives it back to me! And we are off to the races. And not treating Rob Neyer like he’s some fountain of wisdom, untouchable in terms of dissent. But treating him as an equal. Someone who needs to defend his thoughts and writing, just like any of us. There’s something very positive about that – even if it’s done with some snark to help provoke the desired effect.
i hope he comes back
i’ve been a big neyer fan for a long time. he completely changed the way i thought about baseball.
does anyone know if he’ll still do chats on SBnation?
I am observing and judging you.
I believe that's in the plans
I heard some rumblings that they’re trying to determine the best technology for it.
I guess I simply am awash in ignorance of Alfredo Simon. -James F
and i put that in question marks
because i honestly don’t know. but no, if somebody makes a personal attack, i’m not going to quit “whining”.
I am observing and judging you.
I'm in favor of both them getting on plane, and meeting somewhere between Cali and MD
And hugging it out.
Leader of the "Draft Julio Jones Campaign"
by BaltimoreSportsFan on Feb 10, 2011 5:02 PM EST up reply actions
I'd suggest Iowa
And make them sit out on a picnic bench and they can’t come inside until they hug it out.
"I find you to be ... disturbingly great." - Steven Tyler
Kissing should be involved.
They need to kiss and make up.
Hugging is so namby pamby.
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
It is kinda like watching one sibling ..
… seeing that he’s got the other irritated and can’t help enjoy it for all it is worth.
I’d advise bird to either ignore it, take it like a man, or send it back with relish.
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
yeah, fuck that.
i’m sure jp is a good dude. i sure as hell don’t want to hug him.
I am observing and judging you.
Can't believe no one followed this up.
Stay classy, San Diego.
"I find you to be ... disturbingly great." - Steven Tyler
But it's so hard to follow up cuz you gotta scroll so far up to see what "it" is...
I’m on a laptop without a scroller, that’s a lotta work!
"No Atlantis is too underwater or fictional!"
by Astronaut Mike Dexter on Feb 10, 2011 9:23 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah but then you gotta like... see which post he's tabbed in from and stuff
That’s even more work!
"No Atlantis is too underwater or fictional!"
by Astronaut Mike Dexter on Feb 10, 2011 9:25 PM EST up reply actions
This thread is excellent so far.
Leader of the "Draft Julio Jones Campaign"
by BaltimoreSportsFan on Feb 10, 2011 3:49 PM EST reply actions
anyone else just generally love the use of the word snark?
Get 'em.
"it ain't no sin in goin to da scrip club."
Music City Miracles Hall Of Fame, Class of 2010
it's jumped the snark.
Just enjoy the beats.
-Guts
by j.q. higgins on Feb 10, 2011 4:59 PM EST up reply actions
You know there actually was an episode of Happy Days where a guy literally jumped over a shark?
and it was the best one EVER.
junior...
i’m probably one of the few regulars here that actually saw episodes of happy days when they originally aired. quite aware.
Just enjoy the beats.
-Guts
by j.q. higgins on Feb 10, 2011 6:58 PM EST up reply actions
GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!
"There you go. Givin' a fuck when it ain't your turn to give a fuck." ~ 'Bunk' Moreland
by PBR me ASAP! on Feb 10, 2011 7:10 PM EST up reply actions
I'd hope everyone is well aware
my previous post was a quote from Community, i was hoping someone would pick up on it before i looked dumb.
bah.
missed it.
Just enjoy the beats.
-Guts
by j.q. higgins on Feb 10, 2011 7:33 PM EST up reply actions
I can do you one better.
I remember watching the Flintsones and the Jetsons when they were on in prime time.
While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.
- Charles Evans Hughes
...caaaandy gram...
OH MY GOD IT’S THE LAND SNARK!
Just because you know how to read, doesn't mean you'll like the book.
by arlingtonOsFan on Feb 10, 2011 4:59 PM EST up reply actions
"I'm only a dolphin m'am."
Get 'em.
"it ain't no sin in goin to da scrip club."
Music City Miracles Hall Of Fame, Class of 2010
by danielreese05 on Feb 10, 2011 5:04 PM EST up reply actions
I actually think the word snark has jumped the shark.
"One way to lower a flag to half-mast is just to lower the flag. There's another way, though. You can raise the pole to twice its original height." - Infinite Jest
by Eat More Esskay on Feb 10, 2011 5:00 PM EST up reply actions
TEAM ANDREW!
Damn, I thought it was just me.
"I find you to be ... disturbingly great." - Steven Tyler
Yeah, too many people have heard of it now. It's totally sold out. No good any more.
"One way to lower a flag to half-mast is just to lower the flag. There's another way, though. You can raise the pole to twice its original height." - Infinite Jest
by Eat More Esskay on Feb 10, 2011 5:07 PM EST up reply actions
look at this fucking hipster...
Get 'em.
"it ain't no sin in goin to da scrip club."
Music City Miracles Hall Of Fame, Class of 2010
by danielreese05 on Feb 10, 2011 5:08 PM EST up reply actions
O's Hangout is too mainstream
we’re like, crazy underground I swear.
Get 'em.
"it ain't no sin in goin to da scrip club."
Music City Miracles Hall Of Fame, Class of 2010
by danielreese05 on Feb 10, 2011 5:23 PM EST up reply actions
I was on CC before it became mainstream
"things like locig and prrofreading are actually valued here" - zknower
Dude you found us in Sports Illustrated
I guess I simply am awash in ignorance of Alfredo Simon. -James F
And they're using B.O.B. as a producer, and I swear, that last single was Auto-Tuned to DEATH.
"I find you to be ... disturbingly great." - Steven Tyler
B.o.B. kills.
Almost booked him. I have the conversation with his manager to prove it.
"All hope is not lost." -EME
by WestcoastO'sFan on Feb 10, 2011 10:58 PM EST up reply actions
the word makes me laugh
I always picture some kinda snake-shark hybrid.
Get 'em.
"it ain't no sin in goin to da scrip club."
Music City Miracles Hall Of Fame, Class of 2010
by danielreese05 on Feb 10, 2011 5:07 PM EST up reply actions
That's on Boomerang
Leader of the "Draft Julio Jones Campaign"
by BaltimoreSportsFan on Feb 10, 2011 5:49 PM EST up reply actions
I'm willing to lose a season.
Baseball, football, who cares. The money is escalating players and owners squabble over what share they’ll get. Fans gripe about it all while providing the fuel.
I’d like to see fans wise up and stop spending so much money on sports. Let the income flow dry up. Instead of having owners and players squabble over an increasing revenues, I’d prefer they squabble over drastically reduced revenues. Who knows, it might light a fire under their collective asses when they realize they can’t perpetrate the current system.
Damn, too bad i missed this.
After the last James F. post I decided I’m going to start taking more sides and getting into more arguments. Especially since school is winding down and I have way more time on my hands.
"All hope is not lost." -EME
by WestcoastO'sFan on Feb 10, 2011 10:40 PM EST reply actions
senior-itis kicked in yet?
Get 'em.
"it ain't no sin in goin to da scrip club."
Music City Miracles Hall Of Fame, Class of 2010
by danielreese05 on Feb 10, 2011 10:48 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, but since I'm still paying tution out the ass so I'm forcing myself to keep going.
"All hope is not lost." -EME
by WestcoastO'sFan on Feb 10, 2011 10:53 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Camden Chat
Related FanShots on Camden Chat
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Official Sponsor of Camden Chat GameThreads
