Photo

BSL: How Will The O's Build Their FO?


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#21 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 110,271 posts

Posted 14 October 2018 - 09:19 AM

The hires don't matter that much, at least not yet. They could... but that's the second logic gate. If the first logic gate is closed, then the second doesn't matter.

If they make a bad hire, that'd be disappointing. But even if they hire great people, it's meaningless if they don't change their stripes as owners. Nobody can overcome the Angelos influence as its been to date.


Nah, that's not accurate.

2012-16 happened and not everything went right in that period, starting with Ownership.

If Ownership is even slightly better going forward, that's a win. (Maybe not enough of a win, but improvement all the same.)

How the hires are allowed to operate obviously matters more than who, but who is hired will also be telling and matter.

#22 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,986 posts

Posted 14 October 2018 - 09:42 AM

Nah, that's not accurate.

2012-16 happened and not everything went right in that period, starting with Ownership.

If Ownership is even slightly better going forward, that's a win. (Maybe not enough of a win, but improvement all the same.)

How the hires are allowed to operate obviously matters more than who, but who is hired will also be telling and matter.

12-16 was blind squirrels finding nuts. It'll happen again, but it is unlikely so it'll take a while.

The hire only matters if ownership changes. I see no reason so far to believe the sons are different from Peter. Their words are meaningless. Only thing that will be telling is, with time, if the new hire is given free reign over all baseball decisions without interference. Only once we've seen that the baseball men can operate without handcuffs does it really matter who they are or how good they are.

#23 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 110,271 posts

Posted 14 October 2018 - 09:59 AM

Yeah, I don't agree with that characterization.

2012-16 happened with at least one arm tied behind their backs. It wasn't luck to me. It was overall success despite the limitations of the organization.

Overall I think I generally agree with the point. If Ownership doesn't really change, the chances of ever building a consistent winner is unlikely.

That said, I do think these hires matter. Do think who they are and the structure matters. Do think even incremental improvements from Ownership would matter.

#24 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,986 posts

Posted 14 October 2018 - 10:05 AM

2012-16 happened with at least one arm tied behind their backs. It wasn't luck to me. It was overall success despite the limitations of the organization.

If you don't like the word luck, call it something else. This period of success is an anomaly given the constraints. Simply having smart GM, development, scouting, and field management can't overcome the ineptitude of ownership consistently over a long period. The stain of ownership wins out. Every now and then a group will break through for a few years, but it'll fall back into the muck quickly.

The next hire is irrelevant unless ownership changes. I realize this next hire comes before proof of that change, so it's natural to be interested in the process. But it doesn't matter, at least not yet.

#25 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 110,271 posts

Posted 14 October 2018 - 10:48 AM

If you don't like the word luck, call it something else. This period of success is an anomaly given the constraints. Simply having smart GM, development, scouting, and field management can't overcome the ineptitude of ownership consistently over a long period. The stain of ownership wins out. Every now and then a group will break through for a few years, but it'll fall back into the muck quickly.

The next hire is irrelevant unless ownership changes. I realize this next hire comes before proof of that change, so it's natural to be interested in the process. But it doesn't matter, at least not yet.


It was a five year period where they had the best cumulative record in the American League.

It wasn't a fluke.
It wasn't luck.

It was earned, and it was earned while operating with poor Ownership and ridiculous constraints making the accomplishment all the more remarkable.

#26 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,986 posts

Posted 14 October 2018 - 11:14 AM

It was an anomay that enough players could be found at the same time given all the hindrances that ownership imparts on the organization.

It will happen again, even with shitty ownership. But it's low odds with little margin for error, so will take a long time.

Better ownership would lead to much lrger margins and much more consistent chances of success. It is, in fact, the only way for consistent success. As we are, we will be good for a few years every couple decades. Whenever we happen to hit on several key draft picks in a short period or have a few slam dunk trades or just have a superstar or two develop from deep in the org.

The president and GM are irrelevant if ownership doesn't change.

#27 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 110,271 posts

Posted 14 October 2018 - 11:18 AM



Overall I think I generally agree with the point. If Ownership doesn't really change, the chances of ever building a consistent winner is unlikely.

That said, I do think these hires matter. Do think who they are and the structure matters. Do think even incremental improvements from Ownership would matter.


Yeah, Mackus..we agree that the only way the Orioles build a consistent winner is with significant change with Ownership.

#28 birdwatcher55

birdwatcher55

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,402 posts

Posted 14 October 2018 - 11:53 AM

Count me as more optimistic. I look forward to hirings and rebuild
  • sandiegosean likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners